Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 65–71 | Cite as

Inactivation kinetics of sensory neuron sodium channels depend on the type of hydrogen ion buffer

  • B. V. Krylov
  • S. A. Podzorova
  • Yu. Yu. Vilin


Tetrodotoxin-sensitive and tetrodotoxin-resistant sodium currents were studied in rat dorsal root ganglion neurons using a patch-clamp method. The type of hydrogen ion buffer used was found to affect the kinetics of the inactivation process. Tris ions irreversibly bound to the inactivation gating apparatus, accelerating the decay in the trailing front of the ion current. The characteristics of this process were clearly nonlinear in this buffer. In HEPES buffer, the inactivation dynamics were slowed for both types of channel studied. Unlike results obtained with tris buffer, there were no sharp changes in the characteristics as compared to those obtained immediately after puncture of the cell membrane. The advantages of using HEPES buffer for studies of the inactivation gating processes of sodium channels are discussed.

Key words

Sodium channel patch-clamp method inactivation of sodium conductivity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    N. S. Veselovskii, P. G. Kostyuk, and A. Ya. Tsyndrenko, “Discrimination of ion currents responsible for generating action potentials in the somatic membranes of neurons in newborn rats,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR,249, No. 6, 1466–1469 (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yu. I. Zil'berter and E. N. Timin, “The process of inactivation of rapid sodium currents through membranes of single cardiac cells,” Byull. Éksp. Biol. Med.,9, No. 10, 5–7 (1982).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. V. Krylov, “Modeling of membrane adaptation at nodes of Ranvier as a result of sodium channel inactivation,” Neirofiziologiya,15, No. 5, 535–539 (1983).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. V. Lonskii, Z. I. Krutetskaya, and N. G. Roshchina, “The effect of niflumic acid on components of the inactivation of sodium channels in the membranes of nodes of Ranvier,” Fiziol. Zh. SSSR,75, No. 3, 327–333 (1989).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Marti and E. Neer, Whole-Cell Recording in Conditions of Dense Contacts. Recording of Single Channels [Russian translation], Moscow (1987).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. N. Mozhaeva, A. P. Naumov, and E. D. Nosyreva, “The kinetics of the decay in the sodium current on repolarization of the axon membrane in normal conditions and in the presence of scorpion toxin,” Neirofiziologiya,12, No. 5, 541–549 (1980).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. M. Peganov, “On the kinetics of the process of inactivation of sodium channels in the frog node of Ranvier,” Byull. Éksp. Biol. Med.,76, No. 11, 5–9 (1973).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Somien, Encoding of Sensory Information in the Mammalian Nervous System [Russian translation], Moscow (1975).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. N. Akoev, N. P. Alekseev, and B. V. Krylov, Mechanoreceptors. Their Functional Orgnaization, Berlin (1988).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Bromm, J. R. Schwartz, and G. Ochs, “A quantitative analysis of combined potential and current clamp experiments of the single myelinated nerve fibre ofRana esculenta,” J. Theoret. Neurobiol.,1, No. 1, 120–133 (1981).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Chen, A. E. Cole, A. B. MacDermott, et al., “The influence of skeletal muscle on the electrical excitability of dorsal root ganglion neurons in culture,” Neuroscience,7, No. 8, 2412–2422 (1987).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Y. Chiu, “Inactivation of sodium channels: second order kinetics in myelinated nerve,” J. Physiol.,273, No. 3, 573–596 (1977).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. A. Elliott and J. R. Elliott, “Characterization of TTX-sensitive and TTX-resistant sodium currents in small cells from adult rat dorsal root ganglia,” J. Physiol.,463, 39–56 (1993).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    O. P. Hamill, A. Marty, E. Neher, et al., “Improved patch-clamp techniques for high-resolution current recording from cells and cell-free membrane patches,” Pflug. Arch.,391, No. 1, 85–100 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. W. Hanrahan and J. A. Tabcharani, “Inhibition of an outwardly rectifying anion channel by HEPES and related buffers,” J. Membr. Biol.,116, No. 2, 65–77 (1990).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. L. Hodgkin and A. F. Huxley, “The dual effect of membrane potential on sodium conductance in the giant axon of Loligo,” J. Physiol.,116, No. 4, 497–506 (1952).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    K.-D. Kniffki, D. Siemen, and W. Vogel, “Development of sodium permeability inactivation in nodal membranes,” J. Physiol.,313, 37–48 (1981).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. G. Kostyuk, N. S. Veselovsky, and A. Y. Tsyndrenko, “Ionic currents in the somatic membrane of rat dorsal root ganglion neurons. 1. Sodium currents,” Neuroscience,6, No. 12, 2423–2430 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. V. Krylov, S. A. Kirov, S. A. Podzorova, and G. N. Akoev, “Additional state of the sodium channel inactivation system: probable mechanism for spike frequency adaptation in sensory neurons,” Primary Sensory Neuron,1, No. 1, 3–35 (1995).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    P. Niemann, J. Schmidtmayer, and W. Ulbricht, “Chloramine-T effect on sodium conductance of neuroblastoma cells as studied by whole-cell clamp and single-channel analysis,” Pflüg. Arch.,418, No. 1-2, 129–136 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    W. Nonner, “Relations between the inactivation of sodium channels and the immobilization of gating charge in frog myelinated nerve,” J. Physiol.,299, 573–603 (1979).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    G. Ochs, B. Bromm, and J. R. Schwarz, “A three-state model for inactivation of sodium permeability,” Biochem. Biophys. Acta,645, No. 2, 243–252 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Y. V. Osipchuk and E. N. Timin, “Electrical measurement on perfused cells,” in: Intracellular Perfusion Neuron of Excitable Cells, London (1984).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    I. H. Peacock, P. G. Nelson, M. W. Goldstone, “Electrophysiological study of cultured neurons dissociated from spinal cord and dorsal root ganglia of fetal mice,” Dev. Biol.,30, No. 1, 137–152 (1973).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. L. Roy and T. Narahashi, “Differential properties of tetrodotoxin-sensitive and tetrodotoxin-resistant sodium channels in rat dorsal root ganglion neurons,” J. Neuroscience,12, No. 6, 2104–2111 (1992).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Schmidtmayer, “Voltage and temperature dependence of normal and chemically modified inactivation of sodium channels. Quantitative description by a cyclic three-state model,” Pflüg. Arch.,414, No. 3, 273–281 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. R. Schwartz, B. Bromm, R. P. Spielmann, and J. L. F. Weytjens, “Development of Na inactivation in motor and sensory myelinated nerve fibres ofRana esculenta,” Pflüg. Arch.,398, No. 2, 126–129 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. P. Spielmann, J. R. Schwartz, and B. Bromm, “Oscillating repolarization in action potentials of frog sensory myelinated nerve fibers,” Neurosci. Lett.,36, No. 1, 49–53 (1983).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. V. Krylov
  • S. A. Podzorova
  • Yu. Yu. Vilin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations