4.7 Article

Competitive and noncompetitive odorant interactions in the early neural coding of odorant mixtures

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 28, 期 10, 页码 2659-2666

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4670-07.2008

关键词

sensory coding; olfactory receptor neuron; in vivo; signal transduction; allostery; mixture interaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most olfactory receptor neurons (ORNs) express a single type of olfactory receptor that is differentially sensitive to a wide variety of odorant molecules. The diversity of possible odorant-receptor interactions raises challenging problems for the coding of complex mixtures of many odorants, which make up the vast majority of real world odors. Pure competition, the simplest kind of interaction, arises when two or more agonists can bind to the main receptor site, which triggers receptor activation, although only one can be bound at a time. Noncompetitive effects may result from various mechanisms, including agonist binding to another site, which modifies the receptor properties at the main binding site. Here, we investigated the electrophysiological responses of rat ORNs in vivo to odorant agonists and their binary mixtures and interpreted them in the framework of a quantitative model of competitive interaction between odorants. We found that this model accounts for all concentration-response curves obtained with single odorants and for about half of those obtained with binary mixtures. In the other half, the shifts of curves along the concentration axis and the changes of maximal responses with respect to model predictions, indicate that noncompetitive interactions occur and can modulate olfactory receptors. We conclude that, because of their high frequency, the noncompetitive interactions play a major role in the neural coding of natural odorant mixtures. This finding implies that the CNS activity caused by mixtures will not be easily analyzed into components, and that mixture responses will be difficult to generalize across concentration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据