Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol 68, Issue 5 1804-1819, Copyright © 1992 by APS

ARTICLES

The recording of odorant-induced mucosal activity patterns with a voltage-sensitive dye

P. F. Kent and M. M. Mozell
Clinical Olfactory Research Center, SUNY Health Science Center, Syracuse 13210.

1. Fluorescence changes in the dye (WW 781) were monitored at 100 contiguous sites in a 10 x 10-pixel array on the bullfrog and salamander olfactory mucosas every 10 ms in response to odorous stimuli. The odorants were d-limonene, butanol, and amyl acetate, each presented at two concentrations with a 3:1 ratio. 2. The fluorescence signals elicited by these odorous stimuli were nearly identical in shape and time course to the electro-olfactograms (EOGs) recorded from the same animal under identical conditions. Like the EOGs, the fluorescence signals exhibited adaptation and were abolished by both Triton X-100 and ether. There was no measurable fluorescence when the tissue was not stained with the dye, and there was no change in fluorescence when, for stained tissue, nonodorized, humidified air was presented as the stimulus. 3. This technique presumably monitors the same events as the EOG, but has the advantage of simultaneously recording the odorant-induced activity from multiple sites across most of the mucosa. Thus this technique preserves subtle differences heretofore lost by other techniques both in the coarseness of their matrices and in the variability generated by trying to piece together, into one collage, results from numerous presentations given at different times. 4. In all preparations, there was a larger difference in the inherent activity patterns (derived from response magnitudes) between different odorants than between different concentrations of the same odorant. These differences were largest on the mucosa lining the floor of salamander's olfactory sac. d-limonene and butanol gave their largest responses near the internal and external nares, respectively, whereas the responses for amyl acetate were more uniform across the mucosal sheet. In contrast to the salamander, smaller differences were observed for both the roof and the floor of the bullfrog's olfactory sac. For the floor, both amyl acetate and d-limonene elicited similar patterns of response magnitude, whereas butanol differed from each of these odorants by eliciting a larger response on the anteriolateral aspect of the mucosa and a lesser response on the remainder. For the roof, different odorants produced different activity patterns, which had profiles not simply described as regions of maximal and minimal responsiveness. 5. Different inherent activity patterns based on temporal characteristics of the fluorescence responses were also observed for different odorants. Each odorant produced a different pixel-by-pixel pattern for the times at which the responses started and ended. For any given odorant, these temporal patterns paralleled the patterns given by response magnitudes.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. C. Yang, P. W. Scherer, K. Zhao, and M. M. Mozell Numerical Modeling of Odorant Uptake in the Rat Nasal Cavity Chem Senses, March 1, 2007; 32(3): 273 - 284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Mainland and N. Sobel The Sniff Is Part of the Olfactory Percept Chem Senses, February 1, 2006; 31(2): 181 - 196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. L. Youngentob, P. F. Kent, and F. L. Margolis OMP Gene Deletion Results in an Alteration in Odorant-Induced Mucosal Activity Patterns J Neurophysiol, December 1, 2003; 90(6): 3864 - 3873. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. N. Johnson, J. D. Mainland, and N. Sobel Rapid Olfactory Processing Implicates Subcortical Control of an Olfactomotor System J Neurophysiol, August 1, 2003; 90(2): 1084 - 1094. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Wachowiak, L. B. Cohen, and M. R. Zochowski Distributed and Concentration-Invariant Spatial Representations of Odorants by Receptor Neuron Input to the Turtle Olfactory Bulb J Neurophysiol, February 1, 2002; 87(2): 1035 - 1045. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M.A. Chaput EOG Responses in Anesthetized Freely Breathing Rats Chem Senses, December 1, 2000; 25(6): 695 - 701. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. W. Scott, D. E. Shannon, J. Charpentier, L. M. Davis, and C. Kaplan Spatially Organized Response Zones in Rat Olfactory Epithelium J Neurophysiol, April 1, 1997; 77(4): 1950 - 1962. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Wang, C. Wysocki, and G. Gold Induction of olfactory receptor sensitivity in mice Science, May 14, 1993; 260(5110): 998 - 1000. [Abstract] [PDF]