Suppose you were a neuroscientist and were given a sample of a new sna...
When the neurotoxin reaches the Neuromuscular junction then it induces the release of more amount of Ca ions in the pre syanaptic membrane due to which more amount of neurotransmitter is released (from vesicles) at synapse which increases the magnitude of depolarisation at synapse or it can also act as a duplicate of neurotransmitter and can cause increase of depolarisation which depends upon the similarity in their molecular function and structure
View all questions of this test
Suppose you were a neuroscientist and were given a sample of a new sna...
Explanation:
Introduction:
In this scenario, we are given a sample of a new snake venom and are testing its effect on action at a synapse. The specific effect observed is an increase in the magnitude of the normal depolarizing excitatory response. We are asked to identify the most likely explanation for this observation.
Depolarizing Excitatory Response:
Before we delve into the possible explanations, let's briefly discuss what a depolarizing excitatory response is. In synaptic transmission, when an action potential reaches the presynaptic terminal, it triggers the release of neurotransmitters into the synaptic cleft. These neurotransmitters then bind to specific receptors on the postsynaptic membrane, leading to the generation of a postsynaptic potential. In the case of an excitatory synapse, this potential is depolarizing, meaning it brings the postsynaptic neuron closer to its threshold for firing an action potential.
Possible Explanations:
Now, let's consider the given options and identify the most likely explanation for the observed increase in the depolarizing excitatory response.
a) Blocking release of the neurotransmitter from the vesicles:
If the venom was blocking the release of the neurotransmitter from the presynaptic vesicles, it would actually decrease the magnitude of the depolarizing response. This option does not explain the observed increase in the response.
c) Acting to break down the neurotransmitter in the synaptic cleft:
If the venom was breaking down the neurotransmitter in the synaptic cleft, it would reduce the availability of the neurotransmitter to bind to receptors on the postsynaptic membrane. This would also result in a decrease in the magnitude of the depolarizing response, not an increase. Therefore, this option is not the most likely explanation.
d) Preventing the presynaptic action potential from arriving at the synapse:
If the venom was preventing the presynaptic action potential from reaching the synapse, it would completely inhibit the release of neurotransmitter and eliminate the depolarizing response. This option does not account for the observed increase in the response.
b) Binding with the neurotransmitter receptors to mimic the action of the neurotransmitter:
The most likely explanation for the observed increase in the magnitude of the depolarizing excitatory response is that the venom is binding with the neurotransmitter receptors to mimic the action of the neurotransmitter. By doing so, the venom enhances the effectiveness of the neurotransmitter in activating the postsynaptic neuron, resulting in an increased depolarizing response.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, based on the given information, the most likely explanation for the observed increase in the magnitude of the depolarizing excitatory response is that the venom is binding with the neurotransmitter receptors to mimic the action of the neurotransmitter. This explanation aligns with our understanding of synaptic transmission and the effects of certain toxins on neuronal signaling.
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed NEET study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in NEET.