Advertisement

Morphological and Functional Study of the Ultrasonic Effects on the Goldfish Mauthner Cell

  • T. N. Pashovkin
  • P. V. Mashkin
  • D. A. Moshkov
  • A. P. Sarvazyan

Abstract

The action of ultrasound on morphological and functional states of identified central neurons — Mauthner cells (M-cells) — was investigated. M-cells are the pair of giant neurons in the fish medulla oblongata. They receive the numerous synaptic endings from vestibular apparatus, through acoustic nerve branches(1). M-cells innervate contralateral spinal motoneurones, which in turn govern the tail and body muscles. M-cells play a definite role in the modulation of fishes’ swimming activity, being intercalating neurons in the otolyths-musculature pathway. The latter point of view has been confirmed by numerous experimental data (2,3).

Keywords

Swimming Activity Automatic Registration Ultrasound Exposure Numerous Experimental Data Giant Neuron 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Diamond, The Mauther cell, in: “Fish Physiology”, Academic Press, New York, (1971), volume 5, p. 265.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S.J. Zottoli, Comparison of Mauthner cell size in teleosts, J. Comp. Neur., 178: 741 (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    L.I. Sasyuk, D.A. Moshkov and S.B. Terekhova, Behaviour of goldfishes in a ring-shaped chamber by vestibular stimulation and the ultrastructures of Mauthner cells (in Russian), in “Ultrastructure Investigations of the Plasticity of Neurons” (in Russian), Pushchino (1981), p. 20.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L.I. Masyuk and D.A. Moshkov, Half automatic registration for quantitative tests of the movement activity of fish (in Russian), Zhurnal evolyutsii biokhimii, fisiologii 16, vol. 3: 318–319 (1980).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W.L. Nyborg, “Physical Mechanisms for Biological Effect of Ultrasound”, HEW Publ. (FDA) (1978), volume 78, p. 8062.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    I.M. Reid and M.R. Sikov, eds., “Interaction of. Ultrasound and Biological Tissues”, DHEW Publ., Wahington (1973).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Murai, K. Hoshi and N. Nakamura, Effect of diagnostic ultrasound irradiated during fetal stage on development of orienting behaviour and reflex ontogeny in rats, Tokyo J. Exp. Med., 116: 17–24 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Siegel, J. Goddard, E. James and P. Siegel, Cellular attachment as a sensitive indicator of the effects of diagnostic ultrasound exposure on cultured human cells, Radiology, 133: 175 (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M.R. Sikov, B.P. Hildebrand and J.D. of Stearns, Postnatal sequelae of ultrasound exposure at fifteen days of gestation in the rat, in “Ultrasound in Medicine”, D. White and R. Brown, eds., PlenumPress, New York (1977).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. N. Pashovkin
    • 1
  • P. V. Mashkin
    • 1
  • D. A. Moshkov
    • 1
  • A. P. Sarvazyan
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Biological PhysicsAcademy of Sciences of the USSRPushchinoUSSR

Personalised recommendations