Table 1.
Biophysical Properties and Statistical Comparisons from Rat, Chicken, and Frog α4β2, α7, and α9α10 Receptors.
| Species | Rat | Chicken | Frog | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Receptor α4β2 | |||||||
| ACh sensitivity | Mean ± S.E.M. (n) | 3.11 ± 2.11 (3) | 159.76 ± 35.67 (4) | 1.07 ± 0.15 (6) | 66.00 ± 9.76 (4) | 0.75 ± 0.02 (7) | 143.71 ± 51.89 (5) |
| ANOVA (P value) | EC50_1: rat vs chick = 0.1346, rat vs frog = 0.1018, and chick vs frog = 0.6927P | ||||||
| EC50_2: rat vs chick = 0.3743, rat vs frog = 0.7809, and chick vs frog = 0.3743P | |||||||
| Desensitization | Mean ± S.E.M. (n) | 77.13 ± 1.21 (4) | 77.68 ± 5.16 (7) | 72.70 ± 3.04 (10) | |||
| ANOVA (P value) | Rat vs chick = 0.9336, rat vs frog = 0.7326, and chick vs frog = 0.7204P | ||||||
| Ca2+ modulation | Mean ± S.E.M. (n) | 0.36 ± 0.04 (5) | 0.55 ± 0.03 (9) | 0.60 ± 0.08 (5) | |||
| ANOVA (P value) | Rat vs chick > 0.999, rat vs frog > 0.9999, and chick vs frog > 0.9999P | ||||||
| Ca2+ permeability | Mean ± S.E.M. (n) | 72.07 ± 9.62 (4) | 78.75 ± 5.04 (6) | 81.51 ± 7.91 (6) | |||
| ANOVA (P value) | Rat vs chick = 0.7999, rat vs frog = 0.7892, and chick vs frog = 0.7999P | ||||||
| Rectification profile | Mean ± S.E.M. (n) | 0.07 ± 0.03 (5) | 0.03 ± 0.03 (6) | 0.02 ± 0.03 (6) | |||
| ANOVA (P value) | Rat vs chick = 0.6838, rat vs frog = 0.4995, and chick vs frog = 0.9437P | ||||||
| Receptor α7 | |||||||
| ACh sensitivity | Mean ± S.E.M. (n) | 432.1 ± 123.45 (8) | 267.56 ± 87.98 (8) | 239.27 ± 33.90 (7) | |||
| ANOVA (P value) | Rat vs chick = 0.365, rat vs frog = 0.6723, and chick vs frog > 0.9999NP | ||||||
| Desensitization | Mean ± S.E.M. (n) | 3.23 ± 0.79 (6) | 3.18 ± 0.54 (9) | 2.00 ± 0.41 (6) | |||
| ANOVA (P value) | Rat vs chick > 0.9999, rat vs frog = 0.3743, and chick vs frog = 0.2496NP | ||||||
| Ca2+ modulation | Mean ± S.E.M. (n) | 0.63 ± 0.10 (4) | 0.46 ± 0.06 (4) | 0.63 ± 0.08 (4) | |||
| ANOVA (P value) | Rat vs chick > 0.999, rat vs frog > 0.9999, and chick vs frog > 0.9999P | ||||||
| Ca2+ permeability | Mean ± S.E.M. (n) | 29.07 ± 7.68 (4) | 37.10 ± 11.82 (4) | 38.47 ± 3.98 (7) | |||
| ANOVA (P value) | Rat vs chick = 0.7447, rat vs frog = 0.7447, and chick vs frog = 0.8931P | ||||||
| Rectification profile | Mean ± S.E.M. (n) | 0.04 ± 0.02 (5) | 0.02 ± 0.003 (5) | 0.03 ± 0.01 (5) | |||
| ANOVA (P value) | Rat vs chick = 0.5909, rat vs frog = 0.9706, and chick vs frog = 0.7295P | ||||||
| Receptor α9α10 | |||||||
| ACh sensitivity | Mean ± S.E.M. (n) | 19.39 ± 2.08 (9) | 17.62 ± 3.33 (6) | 110.89 ± 25.00 (7) | |||
| ANOVA (P value) | Rat vs chick > 0.9999, rat vs frog = 0.0026 and chick vs frog = 0.006NP | ||||||
| Desensitization | Mean ± S.E.M. (n) | 64.46 ± 3.65 (5) | 60.84 ± 4.23 (9 | 14.53 ± 3.01 (7) | |||
| ANOVA (P value) | Rat vs chick > 0.9999, rat vs frog = 0.0051 and chick vs frog = 0.0042**NP | ||||||
| Ca2+ modulation | Mean ± S.E.M. (n) | 3.76 ± 0.73 (5) | 1.00 ± 0.07 (4) | 0.63 ± 0.05 (12) | |||
| ANOVA (P value) | Rat vs chick < 0.0001****, rat vs frog < 0.0001****, and chick vs frog > 0.9981P | ||||||
| Ca2+ permeability | Mean ± S.E.M. (n) | 24.89 ± 2.81 (6) | 100.28 ± 14.02 (6) | 19.56 ± 3.38 (10) | |||
| ANOVA (P value) | Rat vs chick = 0.0299*, rat vs frog > 0.9999, and chick vs frog = 0.0013**NP | ||||||
| Rectification profile | Mean ± S.E.M. (n) | 1.21 ± 0.07 (11) | 2.31 ± 0.34 (10) | 0.21 ± 0.05 (8) | |||
| ANOVA (P value) | Rat vs chick = 0.0229*, rat vs frog = 0.0406*, and chick vs frog < 0.0001****NP | ||||||
NOte.—Values shown are mean ± S.E.M. (n). PParametric and NPnonparametric analysis. ACh sensitivity: EC50 value; desensitization rate: percentage current remaining 20 s (5 s for α7 receptors) after peak response to a 10-fold concentration of EC50 ACh; Ca2+ modulation: current elicited by EC50 ACh at Ca2+ 0.5 mM relative to Ca2+ 3 mM; Ca2+ permeability: percentage of remaining current after BAPTA-AM treatment; rectification profile: current recorded at +40 mV relative to that recorded at −90 mV. *P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.005; ****P<0.0001.