4.5 Article

Peripheral synapses and giant neurons in whip spiders

期刊

MICROSCOPY RESEARCH AND TECHNIQUE
卷 58, 期 4, 页码 272-282

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jemt.10136

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Among invertebrates the synapses between neurons are generally restricted to ganglia, i.e., to the central nervous system (CNS). As an exception, synapses occur in the sensory nerves of arachnid legs, indicating that some nervous integration is already taking place far out in the periphery. In the antenniform legs of whip spiders (Amblypygi), a very special synaptic circuit is present. These highly modified legs contain several large interneurons (giant neurons) that receive mechanosensory input from 700-1,500 tarsal bristles. Some of the sensory cell axons contact a giant neuron at its short, branched dendrite, a few at the soma, but most synapse onto the long giant axon. The fine structure of these synapses resembles that of typical chemical synapses in other arthropods. Although thousands of sensory fibers converge on a single giant neuron, there is no reduction in the actual number of sensory fibers, because these afferent fibers continue their course to the CNS after having made several en passant synapses onto the giant neuron. Touching a single tarsal bristle is sufficient to elicit action potentials in a giant neuron. Owing to the large diameter of the giant axon (10-20 mum), the action potentials reach the CNS within 55 ms, at conduction velocities of up to 7 m/s. However, mechanical stimulation of the tarsal bristles does not elicit a fast escape response, in contrast to giant fiber systems in earthworms, certain insects, and crayfishes. A quick escape is observed in whip spiders, but only after stimulation of the filiform hairs (trichobothria) on the regular walking legs. Although the giant fiber system in the antenniform legs undoubtedly provides a fast sensory pathway, its biological significance is not clearly understood at the moment. (C) 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.5
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