Comparison of the presynaptic actions of botulinum toxin and β-bungarotoxin on neuromuscular transmission

  • C. C. Chang
  • M. C. Huang
Article

Summary

Comparison was made between the presynaptic actions of type A botulinum toxin (BoTX) and β-bungarotoxin (β-BuTX) on isolated nerve-muscle preparations. On the mouse and rat diaphragms, BoTX is about 100 and 10 times more potent than β-BuTX, respectively, whereas on the chick biventer cervicis muscle, β-BuTX is 3–10 times more potent. The paralytic actions of both toxins are preceded by latency, antagonized by high concentrations of calcium or magnesium and by deficiency of calcium, accelerated by high frequencies of nerve stimulation and retarded by decrease of temperature. The paralytic actions of BoTX as well as β-BuTX appear to take place in two processes: first, binding with their respective target sites and second, the inhibitory changes of the target macromolecule of the nerve terminals leading to failure of transmitter release. The latter process is not reversed by washing but is retarded greatly by low calcium, high magnesium or low temperature. Binding of β-BuTX is faster than that of BoTX.

Miniature end-plate potentials of unreduced amplitude could be recorded in junctions blocked by either toxin. End-plate potentials were depressed and the successive decline of their amplitude during train of pulses was abolished by both toxins.

In contrast to the initial facilitatory actions after β-BuTX, BoTX has no sign of facilitation such as increase of the frequency of miniature end-plate potential, restoration of neuromuscular transmission, increase of quantal content of end-plate potential and occurrence of spontaneous fasciculations in low calcium media. Another difference between the two toxins is the typical Wedensky inhibition on repetitive stimulation and post-tetanic potentiation in β-BuTX paralysed muscles. By contrast, after BoTX, sustained contraction without post-tetanic potentiation was observed.

The two toxins show a mutual antagonism especially when β-BuTX is added before or simultaneously with BoTX. The action of the latter was completely antagonized in the presence of β-BuTX. Once it is bound to the target site, however, BoTX seems not to be antagonized by β-BuTX. On the other hand, BoTX appears to be able to retard the effect of bound β-BuTX.

Key words

Botulinum Toxin β-Bungarotoxin Presynaptic Actions Low Calcium High Magnesium Effect of Temperature 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ambache, N.: The peripheral action of Cl. botulinum toxin. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 108, 127–141 (1949)Google Scholar
  2. Ambache, N.: A further survey of the action of Clostridium botulinum toxin upon different types of autonomic nerve fibre. J. Physiol (Lond.) 113, 1–17 (1951)Google Scholar
  3. Ambache, N.: Effect of botulinum toxin upon the superior cervical ganglion. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 116, 9p (1952)Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, V. B.: An intracellular study of the action of repetitive nerve volleys and of botulinum toxin on miniature end-plate potentials. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 134, 264–277 (1956)Google Scholar
  5. Bülbring, E.: Observations on the isolated phrenic nerve diaphragm preparation of the rat. Brit. J. Pharmacol. 1, 38–61 (1946)Google Scholar
  6. Burgen, A. S. V., Dickens, F., Zatman, L. J.: The action of botulinum toxin on the neuromuscular junction. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 109, 10–24 (1949)Google Scholar
  7. Castillo, J. del, Katz, B.: Quantal components of the end-plate potential. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 124, 560–573 (1954)Google Scholar
  8. Chang, C. C., Chen, T. F., Lee, C. Y.: Studies of the presynaptic effect of β-bungarotoxin on neuromuscular transmission. J. Pharmacol. exp. Ther. 184, 339–345 (1973a)Google Scholar
  9. Chang, C. C., Huang, M. C., Lee, C. Y.: Mutual antagonism between botulinum toxin and β-bungarotoxin. Nature (Lond.) 243, 166–167 (1973b)Google Scholar
  10. Chang, C. C., Lee, C. Y.: Isolation of neurotoxins from the venom of Bungarus multicinctus and their mode of neuromuscular blocking action. Arch. int. Pharmacodyn. 144, 241–257 (1963)Google Scholar
  11. Chen, I. L., Lee, C. Y.: Ultrastructural changes in the motor nerve terminals caused by β-bungarotoxin. Virchows Arch., Abt. B Zellpath. 6, 318–325 (1970)Google Scholar
  12. Ginsborg, B. L., Warriner, J.: The isolated chick biventer cervicis nerve-muscle preparation. Brit. J. Pharmacol. 15, 410–411 (1960)Google Scholar
  13. Holman, M. E., Spitzer, N. C.: Action of botulinum toxin on transmission from sympathetic nerves to the vas deferens. Brit. J. Pharmacol. 47, 431–433 (1973)Google Scholar
  14. Hubbard, J. L., Llinás, R., Quastel, D. M. J.: Electrophysiological analysis of synaptic transmission. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co. 1969Google Scholar
  15. Hughes, R., Whaler, B. C.: Influence of nerve ending activity and of drugs on the rate of paralysis of rat diaphragm preparations by Cl. Botulinum type A toxin. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 160, 221–233 (1962)Google Scholar
  16. Kupfer, C.: Selective block of synaptic transmission in ciliary ganglion by type A botulinus toxin in rabbits. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N.Y.) 99, 474–476 (1958)Google Scholar
  17. Lamanna, C., Sakaguchi, G.: Botulina toxins and the problem of nomenclature of simple toxins. Bact. Rev. 32, 242–249 (1971)Google Scholar
  18. Lee, C. Y., Chang, C. C.: Modes of actions of purified toxins from elapid venoms on neuromuscular transmission. Mem. Inst. Butantan Simp. Int. 33, 555–572 (1966)Google Scholar
  19. Lee, C. Y., Chang, S. L., Kau, S. T., Luh, S. H.: Chromatographic separation of the venom of Bungarus multicinctus and characterization of its components. J. Chromatogr. 72, 71–82 (1972)Google Scholar
  20. Lee, C. Y., Cheng, L. F.: Species differences in susceptibility to elapid venoms. Toxicon 7, 89–93 (1969)Google Scholar
  21. Simpson, L. L.: Ionic requirements for the neuromuscular blocking action of botulinum toxin: Implications with regard to synaptic transmission. Neuropharmacol. 10, 673–684 (1971)Google Scholar
  22. Simpson, L. L.: The interaction between divalent cations and botulinum toxin type A in the paralysis of the rat phrenic nerve-hemidiaphragm preparation. Neuropharmacol. 12, 165–176 (1973).Google Scholar
  23. Spitzer, N.: Miniature end-plate potentials at mammalian neuromuscular junctions poisoned by botulinum toxin. Nature New Biol. 237, 26–27 (1972)Google Scholar
  24. Thesleff, S.: Supersensitivity of skeletal muscle produced by botulinum toxin. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 151, 598–607 (1960)Google Scholar
  25. Zacks, S. L., Metzger, J. F., Smith, C. W., Blumberg, J. M.: Localization of ferritinlabelled botulinus toxin in the neuromuscular junction of the mouse. J. Neuropath. exp. Neurol. 21, 610–633 (1962)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. C. Chang
    • 1
  • M. C. Huang
    • 1
  1. 1.Pharmacological InstituteCollege of Medicine National Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan, Republic of China

Personalised recommendations