Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

, Volume 58, Issue 4, pp 1199–1203 | Cite as

Action of tetanus toxin on neuromuscular transmission

  • G. N. Kryzhanovskii
  • A. Kh. Kasymov


Comparison of the effects produced by tetanus toxin and proserine (neostigmine) demonstrated in experiments on cats that tetanus toxin was not a cholinesterase inhibitor. There exists a functional antagonism between the action of the tetanus toxin and that of proserine. At the same time, functional synergism was found to exist between the action of the toxin and that of d-paracurarine as evidenced by the fact that curare block developed more rapidly in the toxin-poisoned muscle than in the normal one. With increase of intoxication periods there was a drop in the action potential amplitude in the muscle, and curare block developed more rapidly. A characteristic response of the intoxicated muscle to indirect rhythmic stimulation with a fairly high frequency (pessimal for the normal muscle) was an increase in the action potential during the initial stimuli, and a relative maintenance of its value during the later stimuli.

The results of this work permit a conclusion that tetanus toxin disturbs the neuromuscular transmission. The possible mechanisms of this effect are discussed. It is very likely that tetanus toxin influences the excretion of the mediator by the presynaptic apparatus.


Public Health Cholinesterase Tetanus Characteristic Response Neostigmine 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    A. G. Ginetsinskii and N. I. Mikhel'son. Byull. éksper. biol. (1938), No. 4, Vol. 5, p. 390.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. V. Golikov. Uchen. zapiski Leningradsk. univ. Seriya biol. nauk (1949), No. 16, p. 6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. G. Kostyuk. Biofizika (1959) No. 2, p. 134.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. N. Kryzhanovskii. byull. éksper. biol. (1960), No. 1, p. 2.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. N. Kryzhanovskii, L. A. Pevnitskii, V. N. Grafova, and A. A. Polgar. Byull. éksper. biol (1961), No. 3, p. 42.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. N. Kryzhanovskii. Tetanus. Problems of Pathogenesis. Author's Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation [in Russian], Moscow (1963).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. M. Shamarina. Izv. AN SSSR. Seriya biol. (1943), No. 1, pp. 39, 50.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. M. Shamarina. Biofizika (1962), No. 2, p. 171.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. I. Shapovalov. In book: Investigations of the Pharmacology of the Reticular Formation and Synaptic Transmission [in Russian], Leningrad (1961), p. 315.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. I. Shapovalov. In book: Investigations of the Pharmacology of the Reticular Formation and Synaptic Transmission [in Russian], Leningrad (1961), p. 327.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. J. Abel. Science (1934), v. 79, p. 121.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Ambache, R. S. Morgan, and G. P. Wright. J. Physiol. (London) (1948), v. 107, p. 45.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. Ambache (1949), v. 108, p. 127.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Barlow. Introduction to Chemical Pharmacology [Russian translation], Moscow (1959).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    V. B. Brooks. J. Physiol. (London) (1954), v. 123, p. 501.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Idem (1956), v. 134, p. 264.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    V. B. Brooks, D. R. Curtis, and J. C. Eccles. (1957), v. 135, p. 655.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. L. Brown, H. H. Dale, and W. Feldberg. (1936), v. 87. p. 394.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. C. Eccles and W. J. O. Connor. (1939), v. 97, p. 4.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Eccles. Physiology of Nerve Cells [Russian translation], Moscow (1959).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. C. Eccles. Ergebn. Physiol. (1961), Bd. 51, S. 299.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. Gopfert and H. Schaefer. Arch. exp. Path. Pharmak (1940) Be. 197, S. 93.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. M. Harvey. J. Physiol. (London), (1939), v. 96, p. 348.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. W. Liley and K. A. K. North. J. Neurophysiol. (1953), v. 16, v. 97, p. 499.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    M. Pelloja. Le tétanos expérimental par la toxine tétanique. Paris (1951).Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    S. Thesleff. J. Physiol. (London) (1960), v. 151, p. 598.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    E. A. Wright, R. S. Morgan, and G. P. Wright. Lancet (1952, v. 263, p. 316.Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    G. P. Wright. Pharmacol. Rev. (1955), v. 7, p. 413.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Consultants Bureau 1965

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. N. Kryzhanovskii
    • 1
  • A. Kh. Kasymov
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Infectious Nervous Pathophysiology Institute of Normal and Pathological PhysiologyAcademy of Medical SciencesMoscowUSSR

Personalised recommendations