Discussion: Comparing Chemical and Electrical Synapses in Biology

This discussion post presents a student's perspective on the prevalence and advantages of chemical versus electrical synapses. The student agrees with the assertion that chemical synapses are more prevalent, citing research that highlights their role in signal amplification and control of cell communication. While acknowledging the speed advantage of electrical synapses, the student emphasizes the benefits of chemical synapses in signal amplification and computation, as supported by the research of Lodish et al. (2000). The student also references Condorelli et al. (2013) and Veenstra (2012) to further illustrate the nuances of both types of synapses. The post reflects an understanding of the complex interplay between these two types of synapses and their importance in the nervous system, and asks a question to further enhance the discussion.

Running head: RESPONSE 1
Response
Name
Institution

RESPONSE 2
As stated by Laura, a chemical synapse is important in facilitating the transmission of
signals and interaction between the nervous system and other parts of the body. It is
also true that chemical and electrical synapses co-exist in the nervous system for the
benefit of the body while performing the necessary tasks. I, however, believe that
chemical synapses are more prevalent than electrical synapses. Pereda (2014)
acknowledges that the main focus in research over the years has been on chemical
synapses. Additionally, the perception was that electrical synapses were more prevalent
in invertebrates but recent research has shown that electrical synapses are widespread
in the human brain as well. However, Nagy, Pereda & Rash (2018) state that chemical
signals normally amplify presynaptic signals and control most communication between
cells. I, therefore, believe that they are more prevalent than electrical signals.
I would also love to agree with Laura’s findings that chemical signals have two main
advantages over electrical signals. As stated by Lodish et al. (2000), chemical synapses
aid in signal amplification by causing multiple contractions of muscle cells due to the
release of considerably few signaling molecules. Lodish et al. further state that chemical
synapses aid in signal computation. I would, however, love to add that electrical
synapses also have some advantages over chemical synapses. Veenstra (2012)
confirms that electrical synapses are faster because they are instantaneous and thus
have no delay. This speed is in comparison with chemical synapse that has a delay of
about one millisecond that may seem very small yet quite significant. Condorelli, Mudò,
Barresi & Belluardo (2013) also reiterate that electrical synapses transmit signals
through fast action potential to the target cells. However, the efficiency of the
transmission is lowered due to the gap junction (Condorelli et al., 2013). I would,
however, love to understand how chemical synapses enhance the neural network as
suggested in Laura’s work.

RESPONSE 3
Reference
Condorelli, D., Mudò, G., Barresi, V., & Belluardo, N. (2013). Distribution and Function
of Gap Junction Coupling in Cortical GABAergic Neurons. Gap Junctions In The
Brain, 69-82. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-415901-3.00005-0
Lodish, H., Berk, A., Zipursky, S. L., Matsudaira, P., Baltimore, D., & Darnell, J. (2000).
Molecular cell biology 4th edition. National Center for Biotechnology Information,
Bookshelf.
Nagy, J. I., Pereda, A. E., & Rash, J. E. (2018). Electrical synapses in mammalian CNS:
Past eras, present focus and future directions. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta
(BBA)-Biomembranes, 1860(1), 102-123.
Pereda, A. E. (2014). Electrical synapses and their functional interactions with chemical
synapses. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(4), 250-263.
Veenstra, R. D. (2012). Biology of Gap Junctions. In Cell Physiology Source Book (pp.
409-429). Academic Press.