4.5 Article

Different types of ganglion cell share a synaptic pattern

Journal

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE NEUROLOGY
Volume 507, Issue 6, Pages 1871-1878

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cne.21644

Keywords

retinal ganglion cell; dendrite; ribbon synapse; sluggish; brisk; guinea pig; membrane; microcircuit; retina; synaptic; visual; w-cell; x-cell; y-cell

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY00828, EY11105, EY13333] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Retinal ganglion cells comprise about 10 morphological types that also differ functionally. To determine whether functional differences might arise partially from differences in excitatory input, we quantified the distributions of ribbon contacts to four mammalian ganglion cell types [brisk-transient (BT), brisk-sustained (BS), local edge (LE), directionally selective (DS)], comparing small vs. large and sluggish vs. brisk. Cells in guinea pig retina were filled with fluorescent dye, immunostained for synaptic ribbons, and reconstructed with their ribbon contacts by confocal microscopy. False-positive contacts were corrected by performing the same analysis on processes that lack synapses: glial stalks and rod bipolar axons. All types shared a domed distribution of membrane that was well fit by a Gaussian function (R-2 = 0.96 +/- 0.01); they also shared a constant density of contacts on the dendritic membrane, both across each arbor and across cell types (19 +/- 1 contacts/100 mu m(2) membrane). However, the distributions of membrane across the retina differed markedly in width (BT > DS approximate to BS > LE) and peak density (BS > DS > LE > BT). Correspondingly, types differed in peak density of contacts (BS > DS approximate to LE > BT) and total number (BS approximate to BT > DS > LE). These differences between cell types in spatial extent and local concentration of membrane and synapses help to explain certain functional differences.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available