Journal of comparative physiology

, Volume 149, Issue 2, pp 207–213 | Cite as

Reaction spectra of sugar receptors in different taste hairs of the fly

  • Helmut Wieczorek
  • Roland Köppl
Article

Summary

The electrophysiological investigation of sugar receptors in different taste hairs ofProtophormiaterraenovae (Diptera, Calliphoridae) has led to the following results:
  1. 1.

    The reaction spectra of sugar receptors, based on the maximal receptor responses to a set of sixteen sugars, are equal in five different types of labellar taste hairs for sugars binding to the pyranose site. D-fructose which reacts on the furanose site, as well as the aryl glucosides 4-nitrophenyl-α-glucoside and phenyl-α-glucoside exert different stimulating effects in sugar receptors of different hair types.

     
  2. 2.

    Mixtures of 4-nitrophenyl-α-glucoside with 1 mol/1 D-glucose and with 1 mol/1 D-fucose elicit 20 % enhanced responses in sugar receptors of the “large” labellar hairs, although D-glucose as well as D-fucose, if applied alone, induce maximal receptor responses.

     
  3. 3.

    Sugar receptors of different tarsal taste hairs differ strikingly in their sensitivities to 4-nitrophenyl-α-glucoside which is a strong stimulus in “D”-type hairs, while it has almost no stimulating effectiveness in “B”-hairs.

     

It is suggested that 4-nitrophenyl-α-glucoside, one of the most effective stimuli for the sugar receptors of the fly, binds neither to the pyranose nor to the furanose site of the sugar receptor; probably it reacts on a new, hitherto unidentified receptor site. Evidences are discussed that the sugar sensitive labellar receptor cells of the fly may be a favourable object for the study of coding problems.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bradley RM (1971) Tongue topography. In: Beidler LM (ed) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol IV, Chemical senses, taste. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  2. Dethier VG (1976) The hungry fly. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  3. Goldrich NR (1973) Behavioral responses ofPhormia regina (Meigen) to labellar stimulation with amino acids. J Gen Physiol 61:74–88Google Scholar
  4. Grabowski CT, Dethier VG (1954) The structure of the tarsal chemoreceptors of the bowfly,Phormia regina Meigen. J Morphol 94:1–20Google Scholar
  5. Hanamori T, Shiraishi A, Kijima H, Morita H (1972) Stimulation of labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly by glycosides. Z Vergl Physiol 76:115–124Google Scholar
  6. Hansen K (1968) Untersuchungen über den Mechanismus der Zucker-Perzeption bei Fliegen. Habilitationsschrift, Universität HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  7. Hansen K, Wieczorek H (1981) Biochemical aspects of sugar reception in insects. In: Cagan RH, Kare MK (eds) Biochemistry of taste and olfaction. Academic Press, New York London, pp 139–162Google Scholar
  8. Hodgson ES, Roeder KD (1956) Electrophysiological studies of arthropod chemoreception. I. General properties of the labellar chemoreceptor of diptera. J Cell Comp Physiol 48:51–76Google Scholar
  9. Jakinovich W Jr, Goldstein IJ, Baumgarten RJ, Agranoff BW (1971) Sugar receptor specificity of the fleshflySarcophaga bullata. Brain Res 35:369–378Google Scholar
  10. Kikuchi T (1975) Genetic alteration of insect sugar reception. In: Denton DA, Coghland JP (eds) Proc Vth Int Symp Olfaction and Taste. Academic Press, New York, pp 27–31Google Scholar
  11. Maes FW, Bijpost SCA (1979) Classical conditioning reveals discrimination of salt taste quality in the blowflyCalliphora vicina. J Comp Physiol 133:53–62Google Scholar
  12. Maes FW, Vedder CG (1978) A morphological and electrophysiological inventory of labellar taste hairs of the blowflyCalliphora vicina. J Insect Physiol 24:667–672Google Scholar
  13. Molen JN van der, Meulen JW van der, Kramer JJ de, Pasveer FJ (1978) Computerized classification of taste cell responses. J Comp Physiol 128:1–11Google Scholar
  14. Morita H (1969) Electrical signs of taste receptor activity. In: Pfaffmann C (ed) Proc IIIrd Int Symp Olfaction and Taste. Rockefeller University Press, New York, pp 370–381Google Scholar
  15. Morita H, Shiraishi A (1968) Stimulation of the labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly by mono- and disaccharides. J Gen Physiol 52:559–583Google Scholar
  16. Ninomiya M, Shimada I (1976) Stereospecificity for oligosac- charides of two receptor sites in a labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly. J Insect Physiol 22:483–487Google Scholar
  17. Pflumm W (1972) Molecular structure and stimulating effectiveness of oligosaccharides and glycosides. In: Schneider D (ed) Proc IVth Int Symp Olfaction and Taste. Wiss Verlagsges, Stuttgart, pp 364–370Google Scholar
  18. Shimada I (1978) The stimulating effect of fatty acids and amino acid derivatives on the labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly. J Gen Physiol 71:19–36Google Scholar
  19. Shimada I, Isono K (1978) The specific receptor site for aliphatic carboxylate anion in the labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly. J Insect Physiol 24:807–811Google Scholar
  20. Shimada I, Shiraishi A, Kijima H, Morita H (1974) Separation of two receptor sites in a single labellar sugar receptor of the flesh-fly by treatment with p-chloromercuribenzoate. J Insect Physiol 20:605–621Google Scholar
  21. Shiraishi A, Tanabe Y (1974) The proboscis extention response and tarsal and labellar chemosensory hairs in the blowfly. J Comp Physiol 92:161–179Google Scholar
  22. Wieczorek H (1976) The glycoside receptor of the larvae ofMamestra brassicae L. (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). J Comp Physiol 106:153–176Google Scholar
  23. Wieczorek H (1980) Sugar reception by an insect water receptor. J Comp Physiol 138:167–172Google Scholar
  24. Wieczorek H (1981) Sugar receptors in the labellar taste hairs of the fly. In: Salanki J (ed) Advances in physiological sciences, vol 23, Neurobiology of invertebrates. Pergamon Press/ Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp 481–493Google Scholar
  25. Wieczorek H, Köppl R (1978) Effect of sugars on the labellar water receptor of the fly. J Comp Physiol 126:131–136Google Scholar
  26. Wilczek M (1967) The distribution and neuroanatomy of the labellar sense organs of the blowflyPhormia regina Meigen. J Morphol 122:175–201Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helmut Wieczorek
    • 1
  • Roland Köppl
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für ZoologieUniversität RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations