A comparison of the reflex organization of thoracic and lumbar segments in the frog spinal cord

Neuronal pathways for the lingual reflex in the Japanese toad

1. Anuran tongue is controlled by visual stimuli for releasing the prey-catching behavior ('snapping') and also by the intra-oral stimuli for eliciting the lingual reflex. To elucidate the neural mechanisms controlling tongue movements, we analyzed the neuronal pathways from the glossopharyngeal (IX) afferents to the hypoglossal (XII) tongue-muscle motoneurons. 2. Field potentials were recorded from the bulbar dorsal surface over the fasciculus solitarius (fsol) to the electrical stimulation of the ipsilateral IX nerve. They were composed of three successive negative waves: S1, S2 and N wave. The S1 and S2 waves followed successive stimuli applied at short intervals (10 ms or less), whereas the N wave was strongly suppressed at intervals shorter than 500 ms. Furthermore, the S1 wave had lower threshold than the S2 wave. 3. Orthodromic action potentials were intra-axonally recorded from IX afferent fibers in the fsol to the ipsilateral IX nerve stimuli. Two peaks found in the latency distribution histogram of these action potentials well coincided with the negative peaks of the S1 and the S2 waves of the simultaneously recorded field potentials. Therefore, the S1 and S2 waves should represent the compound action potentials of two groups of the IX afferent fibers with different conduction velocities. 4. Ipsilateral IX nerve stimuli elicited excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs) in the tongue-protractor motoneurons (PMNs) and the tongue-retractor motoneurons (RMNs). Inhibitory postsynaptic potentials were not observed. 5. The EPSPs recorded in PMNs had mean onset latencies of 6.4 ms measured from the negative peaks of the S1 wave. The EPSPs were facilitated when paired submaximal stimuli were applied at intervals shorter than 20 ms, but were suppressed at intervals longer than 30 ms. Furthermore, the EPSPs were spatially facilitated when peripherally split two bundles of the IX nerve were simultaneously stimulated. 6. On the other hand, the EPSPs recorded in RMNs had shorter onset latencies, averaging 2.5 ms. In 14 of 43 RMNs, early and late EPSP components could be reliably discriminated. The thresholds for the early EPSP components were as low as those for the S1 waves, whereas for the late EPSP components the thresholds were usually higher than those for the S2 waves.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Specificity of sensory projections to the spinal cord during development in bullfrogs

Sensory neurons in dorsal root ganglia of frogs project to areas of the spinal cord they do not normally innervate following removal of adjacent ganglia at tadpole stages (Frank and Westerfield, J. Physiol. (Lond.) 324:495-505, '82b). A possible explanation of this phenomenon is that sensory neurons project to wider areas of the spinal cord in tadpoles than in adult frogs and that partial deafferentation causes the retention of these widespread projections. Therefore, the specificity of sensory projections to the spinal cord in tadpoles was assessed by staining individual dorsal roots with horseradish peroxidase. Thoracic sensory neurons project to thoracic segments of the spinal cord and to the brainstem in tadpoles, like thoracic sensory neurons in adult frogs. They rarely arborize in the brachial region even at stages when no other sensory fibers arborize at this level. Furthermore, their projections are restricted to the dorsal horn at all stages. Conversely, hypoglossal sensory neurons, which project into the intermediate gray matter in the adult, also project to this area in tadpoles. The finding that sensory neurons in tadpoles only project to areas of the spinal cord that they innervate in the adult suggests that the novel projections observed following partial deafferentation of the spinal cord are actually induced by the operation. An additional finding was that forelimb afferents, which project to an area extending from the obex to midthoracic levels in adult frogs, arborize at rostral spinal levels and at thoracic levels several stages before they form projections to the region around their own dorsal root. These differences in the stages at which projections to different levels of the spinal cord develop suggest that local properties of the spinal cord may control the timing of sensory fiber arborization.