Odor response properties of rat olfactory receptor neurons

Science

Volumn 284, Issue 5423, 1999, Pages 2171-2179

  Duchamp Viret, P ^a   Chaput, M A ^a   Duchamp, A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; NONHUMAN; ODOR; OLFACTORY NERVOUS SYSTEM; OLFACTORY RECEPTOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; RAT; RECEPTOR BINDING; SMELLING; STIMULUS RESPONSE;

ACETOPHENONES; ACTION POTENTIALS; ANIMALS; ANISOLES; BENZALDEHYDES; CAMPHOR; CYCLOHEXENES; ODORS; OLFACTORY RECEPTOR NEURONS; PENTANOLS; RATS; RATS, WISTAR; RECEPTORS, ODORANT; TERPENES;

ANIMALIA; VERTEBRATA;

EID: 0033603513     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5423.2171     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. K. Mori and Y. Yoshihara, Prog. Neurobiol. 45, 585 (1995).
2. L. B. Buck and R. Axel, Cell 65, 175 (1991); J. Ngai, A. Chess, M. M. Necles, E. R. Macagno, R. Axel, ibid. 72. 667 (1993); A. Chess, I. Simon, H. Cedar, R. Axel, ibid. 78, 823 (1994); J. Kishimoto, H. Cox, E. B. Keverne, R. C Emson, Mol. Brain Res. 23, 33 (1994).
3. L. B. Buck and R. Axel, Cell 65, 175 (1991); J. Ngai, A. Chess, M. M. Necles, E. R. Macagno, R. Axel, ibid. 72. 667 (1993); A. Chess, I. Simon, H. Cedar, R. Axel, ibid. 78, 823 (1994); J. Kishimoto, H. Cox, E. B. Keverne, R. C Emson, Mol. Brain Res. 23, 33 (1994).
4. L. B. Buck and R. Axel, Cell 65, 175 (1991); J. Ngai, A. Chess, M. M. Necles, E. R. Macagno, R. Axel, ibid. 72. 667 (1993); A. Chess, I. Simon, H. Cedar, R. Axel, ibid. 78, 823 (1994); J. Kishimoto, H. Cox, E. B. Keverne, R. C Emson, Mol. Brain Res. 23, 33 (1994).
5. L. B. Buck and R. Axel, Cell 65, 175 (1991); J. Ngai, A. Chess, M. M. Necles, E. R. Macagno, R. Axel, ibid. 72. 667 (1993); A. Chess, I. Simon, H. Cedar, R. Axel, ibid. 78, 823 (1994); J. Kishimoto, H. Cox, E. B. Keverne, R. C Emson, Mol. Brain Res. 23, 33 (1994).
6. L. B. Buck, Chem. Senses 18, 203 (1993); Cell 83, 349 (1995).
7. L. B. Buck, Chem. Senses 18, 203 (1993); Cell 83, 349 (1995).
8. H. Zhao et al., Science 279, 237 (1998).
9. P. Nef et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 89, 8948 (1992); J. Strotmann, I. Wanner, J. Krieger, K. Raming, H. Breer, Neuroreport 3, 1053 (1992); J. Strotmann et al., Cell Tissue Res. 276, 429 (1994).
10. P. Nef et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 89, 8948 (1992); J. Strotmann, I. Wanner, J. Krieger, K. Raming, H. Breer, Neuroreport 3, 1053 (1992); J. Strotmann et al., Cell Tissue Res. 276, 429 (1994).
11. P. Nef et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 89, 8948 (1992); J. Strotmann, I. Wanner, J. Krieger, K. Raming, H. Breer, Neuroreport 3, 1053 (1992); J. Strotmann et al., Cell Tissue Res. 276, 429 (1994).
12. K. J. Ressler, S. L Sullivan. L B. Buck, Cell 73, 597 (1993); R. Vassar, J. Ngai, R. Axel, ibid. 74, 309 (1993); K. J. Ressler, S. L. Sullivan, L. B. Buck, ibid. 79, 1245 (1994); T. C. Bozza and J. S. Kauer, J. Neurosci. 18, 4560 (1998).
13. K. J. Ressler, S. L Sullivan. L B. Buck, Cell 73, 597 (1993); R. Vassar, J. Ngai, R. Axel, ibid. 74, 309 (1993); K. J. Ressler, S. L. Sullivan, L. B. Buck, ibid. 79, 1245 (1994); T. C. Bozza and J. S. Kauer, J. Neurosci. 18, 4560 (1998).
14. K. J. Ressler, S. L Sullivan. L B. Buck, Cell 73, 597 (1993); R. Vassar, J. Ngai, R. Axel, ibid. 74, 309 (1993); K. J. Ressler, S. L. Sullivan, L. B. Buck, ibid. 79, 1245 (1994); T. C. Bozza and J. S. Kauer, J. Neurosci. 18, 4560 (1998).
15. K. J. Ressler, S. L Sullivan. L B. Buck, Cell 73, 597 (1993); R. Vassar, J. Ngai, R. Axel, ibid. 74, 309 (1993); K. J. Ressler, S. L. Sullivan, L. B. Buck, ibid. 79, 1245 (1994); T. C. Bozza and J. S. Kauer, J. Neurosci. 18, 4560 (1998).
16. R. Vassar et al., Cell 79, 981 (1994).
17. C. Dulac and R. Axel, Chem. Senses 23, 467 (1998); R. Axel, ibid. 24, 49 (1999).
18. C. Dulac and R. Axel, Chem. Senses 23, 467 (1998); R. Axel, ibid. 24, 49 (1999).
19. P. Duchamp-Viret and A. Duchamp, Prog. Neurobiol. 53, 561 (1997).
20. A. Duchamp, M. F. Revial, A. Holley, P. MacLeod, Chem. Senses 1, 213 (1974); M. F. Revial, A. Duchamp, A. Holley, P. MacLeod, ibid. 3, 23 (1978); M. F. Revial, A. Duchamp, A. Holley, ibid. 3, 7 (1978); M. F. Revial, C. Sicard, A. Duchamp. A. Holley, ibid. 7, 175 (1982); Ibid. 8, 179 (1983).
21. A. Duchamp, M. F. Revial, A. Holley, P. MacLeod, Chem. Senses 1, 213 (1974); M. F. Revial, A. Duchamp, A. Holley, P. MacLeod, ibid. 3, 23 (1978); M. F. Revial, A. Duchamp, A. Holley, ibid. 3, 7 (1978); M. F. Revial, C. Sicard, A. Duchamp. A. Holley, ibid. 7, 175 (1982); Ibid. 8, 179 (1983).
22. A. Duchamp, M. F. Revial, A. Holley, P. MacLeod, Chem. Senses 1, 213 (1974); M. F. Revial, A. Duchamp, A. Holley, P. MacLeod, ibid. 3, 23 (1978); M. F. Revial, A. Duchamp, A. Holley, ibid. 3, 7 (1978); M. F. Revial, C. Sicard, A. Duchamp. A. Holley, ibid. 7, 175 (1982); Ibid. 8, 179 (1983).
23. A. Duchamp, M. F. Revial, A. Holley, P. MacLeod, Chem. Senses 1, 213 (1974); M. F. Revial, A. Duchamp, A. Holley, P. MacLeod, ibid. 3, 23 (1978); M. F. Revial, A. Duchamp, A. Holley, ibid. 3, 7 (1978); M. F. Revial, C. Sicard, A. Duchamp. A. Holley, ibid. 7, 175 (1982); Ibid. 8, 179 (1983).
24. A. Duchamp, M. F. Revial, A. Holley, P. MacLeod, Chem. Senses 1, 213 (1974); M. F. Revial, A. Duchamp, A. Holley, P. MacLeod, ibid. 3, 23 (1978); M. F. Revial, A. Duchamp, A. Holley, ibid. 3, 7 (1978); M. F. Revial, C. Sicard, A. Duchamp. A. Holley, ibid. 7, 175 (1982); Ibid. 8, 179 (1983).
25. D. P. Wellis, J. W. Scott, T. A. Harrison, J. Neurophysiol. 61, 1161 (1989); F. Motokizawa, Exp. Brain Res. 112, 24 (1996); M. Chalansonnet and M. A. Chaput, Chem. Senses 23, 1 (1998).
26. D. P. Wellis, J. W. Scott, T. A. Harrison, J. Neurophysiol. 61, 1161 (1989); F. Motokizawa, Exp. Brain Res. 112, 24 (1996); M. Chalansonnet and M. A. Chaput, Chem. Senses 23, 1 (1998).
27. D. P. Wellis, J. W. Scott, T. A. Harrison, J. Neurophysiol. 61, 1161 (1989); F. Motokizawa, Exp. Brain Res. 112, 24 (1996); M. Chalansonnet and M. A. Chaput, Chem. Senses 23, 1 (1998).
28. To our knowledge, the only studies of the response properties of individual ORNs in mammals are two studies on the separated heads of rat embryos and young rats [R. C. Gesteland and C. D. Sigward, Brain Res. 133, 144 (1977); R. C. Gesteland, R. A. Yancey, A. I. Farbman, Neuroscience 7, 3127 (1982)] and one study on anesthetized mice [G. Sicard, Brain Res. 397, 405, (1986)]. In mice, extracellular recordings of ORNs were made in the posterior septal area using odor stimuli that were previously used in the frog [G. Sicard and A. Holley, ibid. 292, 283 (1984)]. Mouse ORNs were found to be more selective than those of amphibians. When all stimuli were considered (n = 254), 7.5% evoked excitatory responses, as compared with 39% in the frog.
29. To our knowledge, the only studies of the response properties of individual ORNs in mammals are two studies on the separated heads of rat embryos and young rats [R. C. Gesteland and C. D. Sigward, Brain Res. 133, 144 (1977); R. C. Gesteland, R. A. Yancey, A. I. Farbman, Neuroscience 7, 3127 (1982)] and one study on anesthetized mice [G. Sicard, Brain Res. 397, 405, (1986)]. In mice, extracellular recordings of ORNs were made in the posterior septal area using odor stimuli that were previously used in the frog [G. Sicard and A. Holley, ibid. 292, 283 (1984)]. Mouse ORNs were found to be more selective than those of amphibians. When all stimuli were considered (n = 254), 7.5% evoked excitatory responses, as compared with 39% in the frog.
30. To our knowledge, the only studies of the response properties of individual ORNs in mammals are two studies on the separated heads of rat embryos and young rats [R. C. Gesteland and C. D. Sigward, Brain Res. 133, 144 (1977); R. C. Gesteland, R. A. Yancey, A. I. Farbman, Neuroscience 7, 3127 (1982)] and one study on anesthetized mice [G. Sicard, Brain Res. 397, 405, (1986)]. In mice, extracellular recordings of ORNs were made in the posterior septal area using odor stimuli that were previously used in the frog [G. Sicard and A. Holley, ibid. 292, 283 (1984)]. Mouse ORNs were found to be more selective than those of amphibians. When all stimuli were considered (n = 254), 7.5% evoked excitatory responses, as compared with 39% in the frog.
31. To our knowledge, the only studies of the response properties of individual ORNs in mammals are two studies on the separated heads of rat embryos and young rats [R. C. Gesteland and C. D. Sigward, Brain Res. 133, 144 (1977); R. C. Gesteland, R. A. Yancey, A. I. Farbman, Neuroscience 7, 3127 (1982)] and one study on anesthetized mice [G. Sicard, Brain Res. 397, 405, (1986)]. In mice, extracellular recordings of ORNs were made in the posterior septal area using odor stimuli that were previously used in the frog [G. Sicard and A. Holley, ibid. 292, 283 (1984)]. Mouse ORNs were found to be more selective than those of amphibians. When all stimuli were considered (n = 254), 7.5% evoked excitatory responses, as compared with 39% in the frog.
32. Surgical methods were as follows: All experiments were performed according to animal care guidelines. Adult Wistar rats (250 to 300 g) were anesthetized by an intraperitoneal injection of Equithesine (a mixture of pentobarbital sodium and chloral hydrate) at an initial dose of 3 ml per kilogram of body weight (ml/kg). Anesthetic was then supplemented as necessary to maintain a deep level of anesthesia. Rectal temperature was maintained at 37° ± 0.5°C by a homeothermic blanket (Harvard Apparatus, USA), and the surgical wounds of the animals were regularly infiltrated with 2% Procaine. For recordings, anesthetized animals were secured in a sterotaxic apparatus. Recordings were performed in the endoturbinate II. Access to the olfactory mucosa was gained by removing the nasal bones and then gently slipping aside the dorsal recess underlying these bones. Recording procedures were as follows: Single-unit action potentials were recorded with metal-filled glass micropipettes (3 to 7 megohm), and the EOG was recorded with glass micropipettes 50 μm in diameter filled with saline solution. The recorded signals were led through conventional amplifiers. Spike signals were filtered between 300 and 3000 Hz. Data were stored on a Data Tape Recorder (Biologic, France). During the experiment, the single-unit nature of the recording was controlled online by triggering the recorded cell near the background noise. The activity was monitored on a storage oscilloscope. This allowed us to control the characteristics of the polyphasic spike of the cell that was studied in order to ensure that the same cell was recorded throughout all the experimental procedures. The single-unit activity and EOG signal were sampled offline at 15 kHz and 200 Hz, respectively, by means of a CED-1401 data acquisition system (Cambridge Electronic Design, UK) connected to a computer. Spikes were first detected by the waveform signal crossing a trigger level and then by visual inspection of the consistency of the shape of the sorted spikes on the computer screen.
33. Studies of the qualitative discrimination properties of ORNs in the frog (9, 11) have shown that the concept of the odor group has a fundamental meaning that is related to the structure of olfactory molecules.
34. P. Sklar et al., J. Biol. Chem. 33, 15538 (1988).
35. M. Vigouroux, P. Viret, A. Duchamp, J. Neurosci. Methods 24, 57 (1988).
36. Because recording a single ORN long enough to test all the 16 odorants was rather difficult, the whole odor set was subdivided into three subsets. Subset 1 was composed of camphor (CAM), limonene (LIM), isoamyl acetate (ISO), acetophenone (ACE), methylamyl ketone (MAK), and anisole (ANI). Subset 2 was composed of cineol (CIN), vanillin (VAN), p-cymene (CYM), cyclodecanone (CDN), cyclohexanone (HEX), and heptanol (HEP). Subset 3 was composed of two pairs of enantiomers: l- and d-carvone and l- and d-citronellol. The three subsets were delivered in that order, whereas odors of a given subset were delivered at random. According to this stimulation protocol, only neurons tested with subset 1, at least, were considered to analyze the qualitative discrimination properties of ORNs.
37. P. Duchamp-Viret, M. A. Chaput, A. Duchamp, data not shown.
38. P. Duchamp-Viret, A. Duchamp, M. Vigouroux, J. Neurophysiol. 61, 1085 (1989); P. Duchamp-Viret, A. Duchamp, C. Sicard, Brain Res. 517, 256 (1990).
39. P. Duchamp-Viret, A. Duchamp, M. Vigouroux, J. Neurophysiol. 61, 1085 (1989); P. Duchamp-Viret, A. Duchamp, C. Sicard, Brain Res. 517, 256 (1990).
40. T. Sato, J. Hirono, M. Tonioke, M. Takebayashi J. Neurophysiol. 72, 2980 (1994).
41. K. Raming et al., Nature 361, 353 (1993).
42. In in situ hybridization experiments, K. J. Ressler, S. L. Sullivan, and L B. Buck [Cell 73, 597 (1993)] have used antisense probes to hybridize OR subfamilies. They observed a regional distribution of these subfamilies in the olfactory mucosa and hypothesized that each subfamily would code for ORs that would have identical or similar odor specificities. In contrast, our results suggest that a given OR subfamily may code for ORs expressing different odor-binding properties. This hypothesis does not call the importance of the regionalization of ORs subfamilies into question, because belonging to a subfamily would permit a precise targeting of epithelial zones to the olfactory bulb.
43. B. Malnic, J. Hirono, T. Sato, L. B. Buck, Cell 96, 713 (1999).