Advertisement

Journal of comparative physiology

, Volume 132, Issue 2, pp 167–178 | Cite as

Physiology of the maxillary sugar sensitive cell in the red turnip beetle,Entomoscelis americana

  • B. K. Mitchell
  • P. Gregory
Article

Summary

The galeae of red turnip beetle larvae each have a single sensillum which is chemosensitive. One of the four chemosensitive cells in this sensillum responds to sugars, sucrose and mannose being the most effective of the sugars tested (Fig. 4). The electrophysiological threshold for the response to sucrose can be as low as 0.01 mM and the Kb for the response is approximately 1.0 mM (Figs. 1 and 2). The same cell also responds to several amino acids, alanine being the most effective (Table 2). When the characteristics of this sugar sensitive cell are compared with similar cells in adult flies, significant differences are found. The most obvious differences are related to amino acid sensitivity and the effect of PCMB on the response to sucrose (Table 1).

When an attempt is made to compare data on sugar sensitive cells from most insects that have been studied, we find that many parameters cannot be compared directly either because they have not been measured or have not been measured in the same way. The comparisons that can be reasonably made indicate that we can expect to find many differences within the Insecta (Table 5). There is a need for a more systematic approach to insect chemoreceptor mechanisms in order to facilitate future comparisons. Suggestions for such an approach are made in the last section of this paper.

Keywords

Sugar Sucrose Alanine Systematic Approach Mannose 
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.

Abbreviation

PCMB

p-chloromercuribenzoate

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Broyles, J.L., Hanson, F.E., Shapiro, A.M.: Ion dependence of the tarsal sugar receptor of the blowflyPhormia regina. J. Insect Physiol.22, 1587–1600 (1976)Google Scholar
  2. Dethier, V.G.: Sensory input and the inconstant fly. In: Experimental analysis of insect behaviour. Barton Browne, L. (ed.), pp. 21–32. New York, Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer 1974Google Scholar
  3. Dethier, V.G.: The hungry fly. Cambridge, London: Harvard 1976Google Scholar
  4. Dethier, V.G., Hanson, F.E.: Taste papillae of the blowfly. J. Cell. Comp. Physiol.65, 93–100 (1965)Google Scholar
  5. Dethier, V.G., Kuch, J.H.: Electrophysiological studies of gustation in lepidopterous larvae I. Comparative sensitivity to sugars, amino acids and glycosides. Z. Vergl. Physiol.72, 343–363 (1971)Google Scholar
  6. Hanamori, T., Shiraishi, A., Kijima, H., Morita, H.: Stimulation of labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly by glucosides. Z. Vergl. Physiol.76, 115–124 (1972)Google Scholar
  7. Hanamori, T., Shiraishi, A., Kijima, H., Morita, H.: Structure of effective monosaccharides in stimulation of the sugar receptor of the fly. Chem. Sens. Flav.1, 147–166 (1974)Google Scholar
  8. Hansen, K., Kühner, J.: Properties of a possible acceptor protein of the fly's sugar receptor. In: Olfaction and taste IV. Schneider, D. (ed.), pp. 350–356. Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsges. 1972Google Scholar
  9. Hodgson, E.S.: Electrophysiological studies of arthropod chemoreception — II. Response of labellar chemoreceptors of the blowfly to stimulation by carbohydrates. J. Insect Physiol.1, 240–247 (1957)Google Scholar
  10. Hodgson, E.S., Roeder, K.D.: Electrophysiological studies of arthropod chemoreception I. General properties of the labellar chemoreceptors of Diptera. J. Cell. Physiol.48, 51–75 (1956)Google Scholar
  11. Hodgson, E.S., Steinhardt, R.A.: Hydrocarbon inhibition of primary chemoreceptor cells. In: Olfaction and taste. II. Hayashi, T. (ed.), pp. 737–748. Oxford: Pergamon 1967Google Scholar
  12. Hodgson, E.S., Lettvin, J.Y., Roeder, K.D.: Physiology of a primary chemoreceptor unit. Science122, 417–418 (1955)Google Scholar
  13. Ishikawa, S.: Responses of maxillary chemoreceptors in the larva of the silkworm,Bombyx mori, to stimulation by carbohydrates. J. Cell. Comp. Physiol.61, 99–107 (1963)Google Scholar
  14. Ishikawa, S.: Electrical response and function of a bitter substance receptor associated with the maxillary sensilla of the larva of the silkworm,Bombyx mori L. J. Cell. Physiol.67, 1–12 (1966)Google Scholar
  15. Jakinovich, W., Jr., Agranoff, B.W.: Taste receptor response to carbohydrates. In: Olfaction and taste. IV. Schneider, D. (ed.), pp. 371–377. Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsges. 1972Google Scholar
  16. Jakinovich, Jr., W., Goldstein, I.J., Baumgarten, R.J. von, Agranoff, W.: Sugar receptor specificity in the fleshfly,Sarcophaga bullata. Brain Res.35, 369–378 (1971)Google Scholar
  17. Kawabata, K., Kijima, H., Shiraishi, A., Morita, H.: α glucosidase isozymes and the labellar sugar receptor of the blowfly. J. Insect Physiol.19, 337–348 (1973)Google Scholar
  18. Kijima, H., Koizumi, O., Morita, H.: α glucosidase at the tip of the contact chemosensory seta of the blowfly,Phormia regina. J. Insect Physiol.19, 1351–1362 (1973)Google Scholar
  19. Ma, Wei-Chun: Dynamics of feeding responses inPieris brassicae L. as a function of chemosensory input: a behavioural, ultrastructural and electrophysiological study. Mede. Landbouwhogesch. Wageningen72, 11 (1972)Google Scholar
  20. Menco, B., Schoonhoven, L.M., Visser, J.: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of electrophysiological responses of an insect taste receptor. K. Nederl. Akad. Wetenschappen77, 157–170 (1974)Google Scholar
  21. Mitchell, B.K.: Some aspects of gustation in the larval red turnip beetle,Entomoscelis americana, related to feeding and host-plant selection. Entomol. Exp. Appl.24, 340–349 (1978)Google Scholar
  22. Mitchell, B.K., Schoonhoven, L.M.: Taste receptors in Colorado beetle larvae. J. Insect Physiol.20, 1787–1793 (1974)Google Scholar
  23. Mitchell, B.K., Whitehead, A.T., Backus, E.: Ultrastructure of the lateral and medial galeal sensilla of the larva of the red turnip beetle,Entomoscelis americana Brown (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Int. J. Insect Morphol. Embryol. (in press) (1979)Google Scholar
  24. Morita, H., Shiraishi, A.: Stimulation of the labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly by mono- and disaccharides. J. Gen. Physiol.52, 559–583 (1968)Google Scholar
  25. Morita, H., Hidaka, T., Shiraishi, A.: Excitatory and inhibitory effects of salts on the sugar receptor of the fleshfly. Mem. Fac. Sci. Kyushu Univ., Sec. E. (Biol.)4, 123–135 (1966)Google Scholar
  26. Ninomiya, A., Shimada, I.: Stereospecificity for oligosaccharides of two receptor sites in a labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly. J. Insect Physiol.22, 483–487 (1976)Google Scholar
  27. Omand, E., Dethier, V.G.: An electrophysiological analysis of the action of carbohydrates on the sugar receptor of the blowfly. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA62, 136–143 (1969)Google Scholar
  28. Otter, C.J. den, Starre, H. van der: Responses of tarsal hairs of the bluebottle,Calliphora erythrocephala Meig., to sugar and water. J. Insect Physiol.13, 1177–1188 (1967)Google Scholar
  29. Schoonhoven, L.M.: Comparative aspects of taste receptor specificity. In: Transduction mechanisms in chemoreception. Poynder, T.M. (ed.). London: Information Retrieval Ltd. 1974Google Scholar
  30. Schoonhoven, L.M.: On the variability of chemosensory information. Symp. Biol. Hung.16, 261–266 (1976)Google Scholar
  31. Shimada, I.: Chemical treatments of the labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly. J. Insect Physiol.21, 1565–1574 (1975a)Google Scholar
  32. Shimada, I.: Two receptor sites and their relation to amino acid stimulation in the labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly. J. Insect Physiol.21, 1675–1680 (1975b)Google Scholar
  33. Shimada, I.: The stimulating effect of fatty acids and amino acid derivatives on the labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly. J. Gen. Physiol.71, 19–36 (1978)Google Scholar
  34. Shimada, I., Shiraishi, A., Kijima, H., Morita, H.: Effects of sulphydryl reagents on the labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly. J. Insect Physiol.18, 1845–1855 (1972)Google Scholar
  35. Shimada, I., Shiraishi, A., Kijima, H., Morita, H.: Separation of two receptor sites in a single labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly by treatment with p-chloromercuribenzoate. J. Insect Physiol.20, 605–621 (1974)Google Scholar
  36. Shiraishi, A., Kuwabara, M.: The effects of amino acids on the labellar hair chemosensory cells of the fly. J. Gen. Physiol.56, 768–782 (1970)Google Scholar
  37. Shiraishi, A., Morita, H.: The effects of pH on the labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly. J. Gen. Physiol.53, 450–470 (1969)Google Scholar
  38. Takeda, K.: The nature of impulses of single tarsal chemoreceptors in the butterfly,Vanessa indica. J. Cell. Physiol.58, 233–245 (1961)Google Scholar
  39. Whitehead, A.T., Larsen, J.R.: Electrophysiological responses of galeal contact chemoreceptors ofApis mellifera, to selected sugars and electrolytes. J. Insect Physiol.22, 1609–1616 (1976)Google Scholar
  40. Wiezorek, H.: The glucoside receptor of the larvae ofMamestra brassicae L. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) J. Comp. Physiol.106, 153–176 (1976)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. K. Mitchell
    • 1
  • P. Gregory
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations