4.4 Article

Anatomical and Electrophysiological Comparison of CA1 Pyramidal Neurons of the Rat and Mouse

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 102, Issue 4, Pages 2288-2302

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00082.2009

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [MH-48432, MH-44754, NS-37444]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Routh BN, Johnston D, Harris K, Chitwood RA. Anatomical and electrophysiological comparison of CA1 pyramidal neurons of the rat and mouse. J Neurophysiol 102: 2288-2302, 2009. First published August 12, 2009; doi: 10.1152/jn.00082.2009. The study of learning and memory at the single-neuron level has relied on the use of many animal models, most notably rodents. Although many physiological and anatomical studies have been carried out in rats, the advent of genetically engineered mice has necessitated the comparison of new results in mice to established results from rats. Here we compare fundamental physiological and morphological properties and create three-dimensional compartmental models of identified hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neurons of one strain of rat, Sprague-Dawley, and two strains of mice, C57BL/6 and 129/SvEv. We report several differences in neuronal physiology and anatomy among the three animal groups, the most notable being that neurons of the 129/SvEv mice, but not the C57BL/6 mice, have higher input resistance, lower dendritic surface area, and smaller spines than those of rats. A surprising species-specific difference in membrane resonance indicates that both mouse strains have lower levels of the hyperpolarization- activated nonspecific cation current I-h. Simulations suggest that differences in I-h kinetics rather than maximal conductance account for the lower resonance. Our findings indicate that comparisons of data obtained across strains or species will need to account for these and potentially other physiological and anatomical 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

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available