Origins of the phototransduction delay as inferred from stochastic and deterministic simulation of the amplification cascade

PURPOSE: To identify steps of the phototransduction cascade responsible for the delay of the photoresponse. METHODS: Electrical responses of fish (Carassius) cones and Rana ridibunda frog rods and cones were recorded with a suction pipette technique and as an aspartate-isolated mass receptor potential from isolated perfused retinas. Special attention was paid to sufficiently high temporal resolution (1-ms flash, 700 Hz amplification bandpass). Stochastic simulation of the activation steps from photon absorption to the formation of catalytically active phosphodiesterase (PDE) was performed. In addition, a deterministic mathematical model was fit to the experimental responses. The model included a detailed description of the activation steps of the cascade that enabled identification of the role of individual transduction stages in shaping the initial part of the response. RESULTS: We found that the apparent delay of the photoresponse gets shorter with increasing stimulus intensity and reaches an asymptotic value of approximately 3 ms in cones and greater than or equal to 10 ms in rods. The result seems paradoxical since it is suggested that the delay occurs in the chain of steps from photon absorption to the formation of active transducin (T*) which in cones is, on average, slower than in rods. Stochastic simulation shows that actually the steps from photon absorption to T* may not contribute perceptibly to the delay. Instead, the delay occurs at the stage that couples the cycle of repetitive activation of T by rhodopsin (R*) with the activation of PDE. These steps include formation of T* (= T(α)GTP) out of T(αβγ)GTP released from the activation cycle and the subsequent interaction of T* with PDE. This poses a problem. The duration of an average cycle of activation of T in rods is approximately 5 ms and is determined by the frequency of collisions between R* and T in the photoreceptor membrane. The frequency is roughly proportional to the surface packing density of T in the membrane. As the packing density of PDE is approximately 12 times lower than that of T, it could be expected that the rate of the T*–PDE interaction were an order of magnitude slower than that of R* and T. As modeling shows, this is the case in rods. However, the delay in cones is approximately 3 ms which could be achieved only at a T*–PDE interaction time of less than or equal to 5 ms. This means that either the frequency of the collisions of T* and PDE, or the efficiency of collisions, or both in cones are approximately ten times higher than in rods. This may be a challenge to the present model of the molecular organization of the photoreceptor membrane. CONCLUSIONS: The delay of the photoresponse is mainly set by the rate of interaction of T* with PDE. In cones, the delay is shorter than in rods and, moreover, shorter than the duration of the cycle of repetitive activation of T by R*. This poses a problem for the present model of diffusion interaction of phototransduction proteins in the photoreceptor membrane.