Advertisement

Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

, Volume 56, Issue 6, pp 1315–1318 | Cite as

Effect of the electrical polarization of motor nerve endings and their ability to conduct rhythmic impulses

  • I. A. Vladimirova
Physiology
  • 12 Downloads

Summary

A study was made of the effect produced by electric polarization of the motor nerve endings on the conduction of the rhythmic impulses through them. Increased rhythmic end-plate potentials from the hyperpolarized endings were subject to a lesser summation than in normal conditions and weakened more rapidly following prolonged rhythmic stimulation. Hyperpolarization of the nerve endings removed the presynaptic block caused by an increased potassium content in the solution surrounding the muscle. Depolarization of the nerve endings promoted the development of presynaptic blocking. These changes were observed only in local polarization of synaptic plates. A hypothesis is put forward on the nature of the changes occurring in the presynaptic endings, leading to the changes of efficacy of their transsynaptic action and to presynaptic blocking.

Keywords

Public Health Potassium Normal Condition Nerve Ending Motor Nerve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    N. E. Vvedenskii, Complete Collected Works [in Russian], 4, 14, Leningrad (1953).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. S. Vorontsov, Fiziol. zh. SSSR,22, 3–4, 317 (1937).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. S. Vorontsov, Fiziol. zh. SSSR,24, 3, 502 (1938).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. G. Kostyuk, in the book: Papers Presented at the 20th International Congress of Physiologists in Brussels [in Russian], p. 272, Moscow (1956).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. G. Kostyuk, Biofizika, 3, 274 (1958).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. G. Kostyuk, Biofizika, 2, 134 (1959).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. M. Shamarina, Biofizika, 2, 171 (1962).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. del Castillo and B. Katz, J. Physiol. 124, 586, London (1954).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. I. Hubbard and W. D. Willis, Nature, 193, 174 (1962).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    , Nature, 193, 1294 (1962).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    , J. Physiol, 163, 115, London (1962).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Krnjevic and R. Miledi, J. Physiol., 140, 427 (1958).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    , J. Physiol., 149, 1 (1959).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. W. Liley and K. A. North, J. Neurophysiol., 16, 509 (1953).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. W. Liley, J. Physiol., 34, 427, London (1956).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Consultants Bureau Enterprises, Inc. 1964

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. A. Vladimirova
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of General PhysiologyA. A. Bogomolets Institute of Physiology of the AN UkrSSRKiev

Personalised recommendations