Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journal of Cell Biology logoLink to The Journal of Cell Biology
. 1984 Jun 1;98(6):2160–2173. doi: 10.1083/jcb.98.6.2160

Freeze-fracture and electrophysiological studies of newly developed acetylcholine receptors in Xenopus embryonic muscle cells

PMCID: PMC2113044  PMID: 6725410

Abstract

The development of acetylcholine receptors on Xenopus embryonic muscle cells both in culture and in situ was studied using electrophysiology and freeze-fracture electron microscopy. Acetylcholine sensitivity first appeared at developmental stage 20 and gradually increased up to about stage 31. Freeze-fracture of muscle cells that were nonsensitive to acetylcholine revealed diffusely distributed small P-face intramembraneous particles. When cells acquired sensitivity to acetylcholine, a different group of diffusely distributed large P-face particles began to appear. This group of particles was analyzed by subtracting the size distribution found on nonsensitive cells from that found on sensitive cells. We call this group of particles difference particles. The sizes of difference particles were large (peak diameter 11 nm). The density of difference particles gradually increased with development. The density of small particles (less than 9 nm) did not change with development. At later stages (32-36) aggregates of large particles appeared, which probably represent acetylcholine receptor clusters. The size distribution of difference particles was close to that of the aggregated particles, suggesting that at least part of difference particles represent diffusely distributed acetylcholine receptors. Difference particles exist mostly in solitary form (occasionally double), indicating that an acetylcholine receptor can be functional in solitary form. This result also shows that diffuse acetylcholine receptors that have previously been observed with 125I- alpha-bungarotoxin autoradiography do indeed exist in solitary forms not as microaggregates.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (2.0 MB).

Selected References

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

  1. Anderson M. J., Cohen M. W. Nerve-induced and spontaneous redistribution of acetylcholine receptors on cultured muscle cells. J Physiol. 1977 Jul;268(3):757–773. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1977.sp011880. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson M. J., Cohen M. W., Zorychta E. Effects of innervation on the distribution of acetylcholine receptors on cultured muscle cells. J Physiol. 1977 Jul;268(3):731–756. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1977.sp011879. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bevan S., Steinbach J. H. The distribution of alpha-bungarotoxin binding sites of mammalian skeletal muscle developing in vivo. J Physiol. 1977 May;267(1):195–213. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1977.sp011808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Blackshaw S. E., Warner A. E. Low resistance junctions between mesoderm cells during development of trunk muscles. J Physiol. 1976 Feb;255(1):209–230. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1976.sp011276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Blackshaw S., Warner A. Onset of acetylcholine sensitivity and endplate activity in developing myotome muscles of Xenopus. Nature. 1976 Jul 15;262(5565):217–218. doi: 10.1038/262217a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bloch R. J., Geiger B. The localization of acetylcholine receptor clusters in areas of cell-substrate contact in cultures of rat myotubes. Cell. 1980 Aug;21(1):25–35. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(80)90111-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Burden S. Development of the neuromuscular junction in the chick embryo: the number, distribution, and stability of acetylcholine receptors. Dev Biol. 1977 Jun;57(2):317–329. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(77)90218-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cartaud J., Benedetti E. L., Cohen J. B., Meunier J. C., Changeux J. P. Presence of a lattice structure in membrane fragments rich in nicotinic receptor protein from the electric organ of Torpedo marmorata. FEBS Lett. 1973 Jun 15;33(1):109–113. doi: 10.1016/0014-5793(73)80171-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen S. A., Pumplin D. W. Clusters of intramembrane particles associated with binding sites for alpha-bungarotoxin in cultured chick myotubes. J Cell Biol. 1979 Aug;82(2):494–516. doi: 10.1083/jcb.82.2.494. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. DIAMOND J., MILEDI R. A study of foetal and new-born rat muscle fibres. J Physiol. 1962 Aug;162:393–408. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1962.sp006941. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dreyer F., Peper K. Iontophoretic application of acetylcholine: advantages of high resistance micropipettes in connection with an electronic current pump. Pflugers Arch. 1974 Apr 22;348(3):263–272. doi: 10.1007/BF00587417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Fambrough D. M. Control of acetylcholine receptors in skeletal muscle. Physiol Rev. 1979 Jan;59(1):165–227. doi: 10.1152/physrev.1979.59.1.165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Fambrough D., Rash J. E. Development of acetylcholine sensitivity during myogenesis. Dev Biol. 1971 Sep;26(1):55–68. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(71)90107-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fischbach G. D., Cohen S. A. The distribution of acetylcholine sensitivity over uninnervated and innervated muscle fibers grown in cell culture. Dev Biol. 1973 Mar;31(1):147–162. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(73)90326-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Frank E., Fischbach G. D. Early events in neuromuscular junction formation in vitro: induction of acetylcholine receptor clusters in the postsynaptic membrane and morphology of newly formed synapses. J Cell Biol. 1979 Oct;83(1):143–158. doi: 10.1083/jcb.83.1.143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gruener R., Kidokoro Y. Acetylcholine sensitivity of innervated and noninnervated Xenopus muscle cells in culture. Dev Biol. 1982 May;91(1):86–92. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(82)90011-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hamilton L. The formation of somites in Xenopus. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1969 Sep;22(2):253–264. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hartzell H. C., Fambrough D. M. Acetycholine receptor production and incorporation into membranes of developing muscle fibers. Dev Biol. 1973 Jan;30(1):153–165. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(73)90054-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Heuser J. E., Reese T. S., Landis D. M. Functional changes in frog neuromuscular junctions studied with freeze-fracture. J Neurocytol. 1974 Mar;3(1):109–131. doi: 10.1007/BF01111936. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Heuser J. E., Salpeter S. R. Organization of acetylcholine receptors in quick-frozen, deep-etched, and rotary-replicated Torpedo postsynaptic membrane. J Cell Biol. 1979 Jul;82(1):150–173. doi: 10.1083/jcb.82.1.150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hirokawa N., Heuser J. E. Internal and external differentiations of the postsynaptic membrane at the neuromuscular junction. J Neurocytol. 1982 Jun;11(3):487–510. doi: 10.1007/BF01257990. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kano M., Shimada Y. Innervation and acetylcholine sensitivity of skeletal muscle cells differentiated in vitro from chick embryo. J Cell Physiol. 1971 Oct;78(2):233–242. doi: 10.1002/jcp.1040780210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kidokoro Y., Anderson M. J., Gruener R. Changes in synaptic potential properties during acetylcholine receptor accumulation and neurospecific interactions in Xenopus nerve-muscle cell culture. Dev Biol. 1980 Aug;78(2):464–483. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(80)90347-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kidokoro Y., Gruener R. Distribution and density of alpha-bungarotoxin binding sites on innervated and noninnervated Xenopus muscle cells in culture. Dev Biol. 1982 May;91(1):78–85. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(82)90010-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kidokoro Y., Heinemann S., Schubert D., Brandt B. L., Klier F. G. Synapse formation and neurotrophic effects on muscle cell lines. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1976;40:373–388. doi: 10.1101/sqb.1976.040.01.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kuffler S. W., Yoshikami D. The distribution of acetylcholine sensitivity at the post-synaptic membrane of vertebrate skeletal twitch muscles: iontophoretic mapping in the micron range. J Physiol. 1975 Jan;244(3):703–730. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1975.sp010821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kullberg R. W., Lentz T. L., Cohen M. W. Development of the myotomal neuromuscular junction in Xenopus laevis: an electrophysiological and fine-structural study. Dev Biol. 1977 Oct 1;60(1):101–129. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(77)90113-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Land B. R., Podleski T. R., Salpeter E. E., Salpeter M. M. Acetylcholine receptor distribution on myotubes in culture correlated to acetylcholine sensitivity. J Physiol. 1977 Jul;269(1):155–176. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1977.sp011897. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Land B. R., Salpeter E. E., Salpeter M. M. Acetylcholine receptor site density affects the rising phase of miniature endplate currents. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980 Jun;77(6):3736–3740. doi: 10.1073/pnas.77.6.3736. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Letinsky M. S. Acetylcholine sensitivity changes in tadpole tail muscle fibers innervated by developing motor neurons. J Neurobiol. 1975 Nov;6(6):609–617. doi: 10.1002/neu.480060607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lindstrom J., Tzartos S., Gullick W. Structure and function of the acetylcholine receptor molecule studied using monoclonal antibodies. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1981;377:1–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb33721.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Loring R. H., Salpeter M. M. Denervation increases turnover rate of junctional acetylcholine receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980 Apr;77(4):2293–2297. doi: 10.1073/pnas.77.4.2293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Moody-Corbett F., Cohen M. W. Localization of cholinesterase at sites of high acetylcholine receptor density on embryonic amphibian muscle cells cultured without nerve. J Neurosci. 1981 Jun;1(6):596–605. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.01-06-00596.1981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Nickel E., Potter L. T. Ultrastructure of isolated membranes of Torpedo electric tissue. Brain Res. 1973 Jul 27;57(2):508–517. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(73)90158-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Ohmori H., Sasaki S. Development of neuromuscular transmission in a larval tunicate. J Physiol. 1977 Jul;269(2):221–254. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1977.sp011900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Peng H. B., Nakajima Y., Bridgman P. C. Development of the postsynaptic membrane in Xenopus neuromuscular cultures observed by freeze-fracture and thin-section electron microscopy. Brain Res. 1980 Aug 25;196(1):11–31. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(80)90713-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Peng H. B., Nakajima Y. Membrane particle aggregates in innervated and noninnervated cultures of Xenopus embryonic muscle cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Jan;75(1):500–504. doi: 10.1073/pnas.75.1.500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Peper K., Dreyer F., Sandri C., Akert K., Moor H. Structure and ultrastructure of the frog motor endplate. A freeze-etching study. Cell Tissue Res. 1974 Jun 24;149(4):437–455. doi: 10.1007/BF00223024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Pumplin D. W., Drachman D. B. Myasthenic patients' IgG causes redistribution of acetylcholine receptors: freeze-fracture studies. J Neurosci. 1983 Mar;3(3):576–584. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.03-03-00576.1983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Steinbach J. H., Harris A. J., Patrick J., Schubert D., Heinemann S. Nerve-muscle interaction in vitro. Role of acetylcholine. J Gen Physiol. 1973 Sep;62(3):255–270. doi: 10.1085/jgp.62.3.255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Sytkowski A. J., Vogel Z., Nirenberg M. W. Development of acetylcholine receptor clusters on cultured muscle cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1973 Jan;70(1):270–274. doi: 10.1073/pnas.70.1.270. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Takahashi K. Slow and fast groups of pyramidal tract cells and their respective membrane properties. J Neurophysiol. 1965 Sep;28(5):908–924. doi: 10.1152/jn.1965.28.5.908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Tao-Cheng J. H., Rosenbluth J. Nodal and paranodal membrane structure in complementary freeze-fracture replicas of amphibian peripheral nerves. Brain Res. 1980 Oct 20;199(2):249–265. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(80)90688-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Vogel Z., Sytkowski A. J., Nirenberg M. W. Acetylcholine receptors of muscle grown in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1972 Nov;69(11):3180–3184. doi: 10.1073/pnas.69.11.3180. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Yee A. G., Fischbach G. D., Karnovsky M. J. Clusters of intramembranous particles on cultured myotubes at sites that are highly sensitive to acetylcholine. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Jun;75(6):3004–3008. doi: 10.1073/pnas.75.6.3004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Cell Biology are provided here courtesy of The Rockefeller University Press

RESOURCES