QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by CATTAERT, D. Articles by CLARAC, F. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by CATTAERT, D. Articles by CLARAC, F.

Journal of Experimental Biology 169,181-206 (1992)
Published by Company of Biologists 1992

Remote Control of the Swimmeret Central Pattern Generator in Crayfish (Procambarus Clarkii and Pacifastacus Leniusculus): Effect of a Walking Leg Proprioceptor

DANIEL CATTAERT ¹, JEAN-YVES BARTHE ², DOUGLAS M. NEIL ³, and FRANCOIS CLARAC ¹

¹ CNRS-NBM, 31, J. Aiguier, B.P. 71, 13402 Marseille Cedex 9, France
² CNRS-NBM, 31, J. Aiguier, B.P. 71, 13402 Marseille Cedex 9, France; Karolinska Institutet, The Nobel Institute for Neurophysiology, Box 60400, S-10401 Stockholm, Sweden.
³ Neurobiology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland, UK

1. An isolated preparation of the crayfish nervous system, comprising both the thoracic and the abdominal ganglia together with their nerve roots, has been used to study the influence of a single leg proprioceptor, the coxo-basal chordotonal organ (CBCO), on the fictive swimmeret beating consistently expressed in this preparation. Both mechanical stimulation of the CBCO and electrical stimulation of its nerve were used.

2. In preparations not displaying rhythmic activity, electrical or mechanical stimulations evoked excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs) in about 30 % of the studied motor neurones with a fairly short and regular delay, suggesting an oligosynaptic pathway. Such stimulation could evoke rhythmic activity in swimmeret motor nerves. The evoked swimmeret rhythm often continued for several seconds after the stimulus period.

3. When the swimmeret rhythm was well established, electrical and mechanical stimuli modified it in a number of ways. Limited mechanical or weak electrical stimuli produced a small increase in swimmeret beat frequency, while more extreme movements of the CBCO or strong electrical stimuli had a disruptive effect on the rhythm.

4. The effect of low-intensity stimulation on existing swimmeret beating was phase-dependent: it shortened the beat cycle when applied during the powerstroke phase and lengthened it when applied during the retumstroke phase.

5. Rhythmic mechanical stimulation of CBCO or electrical stimulation of the CBCO nerve entrained the swimmeret rhythm within a limited range in relative or absolute coordination.

Note:
To whom reprint requests should be sent.

Key words: in vitro preparation, swimmeret rhythm, leg proprioceptor, Procambarus clarkii, Pacifastacus leniusculus

Accepted on April 7, 1992

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Duysens, F. Clarac, and H. Cruse Load-Regulating Mechanisms in Gait and Posture: Comparative Aspects Physiol Rev, January 1, 2000; 80(1): 83 - 133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Mccarthy and D. Macmillan Control of abdominal extension in the freely moving intact crayfish cherax destructor. II. Activity Of the superficial extensor motor neurones J. Exp. Biol., January 1, 1999; 202(2): 183 - 191. [Abstract] [PDF]