Taste response to 2,5-anhydro-d-hexitols; rigid stereospecificity of the furanose site in the sugar receptor of the flesh fly

Shimada, Ichio; Horiki, Hiroyuki; Ohrui, Hiroshi; Meguro, Hiroshi

doi:10.1007/bf00615148

Cited by 14 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been shown (Hanamori et al, 1974;Shimada et al, 1974Shimada et al, , 1985Shimada, 1978;Shimada and Tanimura, 1981) that there are several specific receptor sites (receptor molecules) on the receptor membrane of the sugar receptor cell. Sucrose and maltose react with the same site, the pyranose site, whereas fructose reacts with the furanose site.…”

Section: Direct Operation Of Transduction Ion Channels By Sugarsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Receptor current fluctuation analysis in the labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly.

Kijima

Nagata

Nishiyama

et al. 1988

The Journal of General Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C T Fluctuations in the receptor current of the labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly were analyzed. The receptor current was recorded extracellularly as a drop in potential between the tip and the base of the taste sensillum. After treatment with tetrodotoxin, the taste cells completely lost their impulses but retained their receptor currents, thus facilitating analysis of the receptor current without disturbance by impulses. The current fluctuation increased markedly when the sensillum was stimulated with effective sugars: maltose, sucrose, and fructose. The fluctuation increased in parallel with development of the receptor current, which indicates that it occurs as soon as the sugar reaches the apex of the sensory process. Analysis of fluctuations by computation of autocorrelation functions (ACFs) or power spectra (PS) revealed that: (a) the variance (mean square) of fluctuation vs. sugar concentration curve reached a maximum, in contrast to the monotonic increase shown by the receptor current; (b) the ACF was approximated by an exponential term, and its time constant differed according to the sugars used and their concentrations. The time constants for fructose and maltose decreased with increases in sugar concentration. At the concentrations of sugars evoking the same magnitude of receptor current, the time constant for fructose was the largest and that for maltose was the smallest. It was strongly suggested that transduction ion channels are present at the tip region of the sensory process of the sugar receptor cell and are operated directly by sugars.

show abstract

Section: Direct Operation Of Transduction Ion Channels By Sugarsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Receptor current fluctuation analysis in the labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly.

Kijima

Nagata

Nishiyama

et al. 1988

The Journal of General Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, the lower variability in responses seen'with such complex diets may be related to their complexity. There is good evidence that the 'sugar' cell of fleshflies, cell 1 in our data, has at least four different receptor types on the dendritic membrane [pyranose (P site), furanose (F site), aryl (AR site) and alkyl (R site)] interacting, respectively, with glucose, fructose, valine and phenylalanine (Shimada et al 1985). Other stimuli for the 'sugar' cell of fleshflies and blowflies, some of which interact with one or more of these sites, include a wide array of sugars (Jakinovich et al 1971), amino acids (Shiraishi and Kuwabara, 1970), fatty acids (Shimada, 1978), dipeptides (Shimada andTanimura, 1981), NaCl (Morita et al 1966) and ATP (Liscia et al 1987).…”

Section: Can Variance Itself Be Informative?mentioning

confidence: 52%

Variance: A Possible Coding Mechanism for Gustatory Sensilla on the Labellum of the FleshflySarcophaga Bullata

Mitchell

Smith

Albert

et al. 1990

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In behavioural tests, 2-day-old female Sarcophaga bullata consumed more liver or fish powder in solution than 100 mmol l−1 sucrose. We investigated the chemosensory basis of this discrimination by recording electrophysiological responses of 177 medium-length labellar taste sensilla from 10 different flies to two applications of each of these three solutions. Responses from three chemosensory cells were evident in most records. Cell 1 produced a mean response of 37.6 impulses s−1, and similar responses to all three stimuli. It was the most active of the three cells. Cell 2 produced a significantly greater response to fish than to liver or sucrose in one of the two stimulus applications. Cell 3, the least active, responded with twice the firing rate to fish than to liver or sucrose. However, the mean firing rates did not provide information that could account for the observed behavioural discrimination. The only difference in the electrophysiological responses to the three stimuli which correlated with the behavioural discrimination was the variance of the response of cell 1, which was much higher to sucrose than to either fish or liver. We propose that variance itself could provide the necessary information to allow the fly's nervous system to distinguish between a ‘simple’ stimulus such as sucrose and a ‘complex’ stimulus such as fish or liver.

show abstract

Taste sensilla of flies: Function, central neuronal projections, and development

Pollack

Balakrishnan

1997

Microsc. Res. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taste sensilla of flies are composed of only a few cells, all of which have different functions. Depending on the species and on the sensillum type, there are from 2-5 neurons, each of which has its own stimulus specificity, and each of which makes a different contribution to the fly's behavior. In addition, taste sensilla include several nonneuronal cells that are important both for the development of the sensillum and for its functioning. The component cells of a sensillum derive from a single epidermal precursor according to a stereotyped sequence of mitoses. This review focuses on the different phenotypes of the component cells of taste sensilla, particularly the stimulus sensitivity and central neuronal anatomy of the receptor neurons, and on the development of this multicellular organ from a single precursor cell.

show abstract

Taste response to 2,5-anhydro-d-hexitols; rigid stereospecificity of the furanose site in the sugar receptor of the flesh fly

Cited by 14 publications

References 11 publications

Receptor current fluctuation analysis in the labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly.

Receptor current fluctuation analysis in the labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly.

Variance: A Possible Coding Mechanism for Gustatory Sensilla on the Labellum of the FleshflySarcophaga Bullata

Taste sensilla of flies: Function, central neuronal projections, and development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About