Skip Navigation

American Zoologist 2001 41(4):1036-1048; doi:10.1093/icb/41.4.1036
© 2001 by The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jones, B. R.
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, S. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


Mechanism of Postinhibitory Rebound in Molluscan Neurons1

Bradley R. Jones1 and Stuart H. Thompson2,2
1 Pacific Biomedical Research Center, 1993 East-West Road, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
2 Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific Grove, California 93950

Postinhibitory rebound (PIR) is an intrinsic property of many neurons but the underlying mechanism is not well understood. We studied PIR and its relationship to spike adaptation in B-cells isolated from the buccal ganglia of Aplysia. These neurons exhibit PIR following inhibitory synaptic input and following direct membrane hyperpolarization. Hyperpolarizing and depolarizing voltage clamp pulses from the resting potential evoke slow changes in membrane current that persist in the form of tail currents following the pulses. A subtraction method was used to isolate slow tail currents for study. Current-voltage measurements indicate that slow outward tail currents following depolarizing pulses result from increases in membrane conductance, while inward tail currents following hyperpolarizations to –50 and –60 mV result from conductance decreases. The reversal potential of both outward and inward tail current is between –60 and –70 mV. Tail currents activated by pulses more positive than –60 mV are sensitive to the external K+ concentration and blocked by injection of Cs+ and TEA. When Ca2+ influx is prevented by bathing cells in Ca2+ free saline or by adding Co2+ or Ni2+, the tail currents are reduced but a significant fraction of the current is insensitive to these treatments. More negative conditioning pulses activate a second component of inward tail current that is weakly sensitive to K+ but more strongly effected by substitution of N-methyl glucamine or Li+ for external Na+. We conclude that both PIR and adaptation result from slow changes in a voltage dependent, non-inactivating K+ conductance that is active at voltages near the resting potential and is not tightly coupled to Ca2+ influx. In addition, a second inward current is activated by large hyperpolarizing pulses that results from an increase in Na+ and K+ conductance. This second process is likely to contribute to PIR under particular circumstances.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.