4.7 Article

Frequency-Tuned Distribution of Inhibition in the Dentate Gyrus

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 30, Issue 38, Pages 12597-12607

Publisher

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1854-10.2010

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Epilepsy Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Granule cells (GCs) of the dentate gyrus use sparse encoding to perform redundancy reduction, pattern separation, and novelty detection. One likely candidate mechanism to enforce low spiking activity is feedforward inhibition, in which the cortical excitatory drive from the perforant path (PP) recruits GABAergic interneurons that then inhibit GCs. Little is known, however, about how PP drive is balanced between GCs versus inhibitory neurons. In simultaneous recordings of GCs and fast-spiking (FS) interneurons from C57BL/6 mice, we find that focal PP stimulation preferentially recruits spiking in FS interneurons over GCs, because GCs require a larger excitatory synaptic current density to reach spike threshold. Blocking inhibition reversed this relationship, revealing a stronger intrinsic coupling between the PP and GCs versus FS interneurons and showing that inhibition can sparsify the output of the dentate gyrus by tightly regulating GC spike probability. Moreover, this regulation is dynamic, because the spiking profile of FS interneurons was frequency tuned, displaying bursting behavior in response to PP stimulation near theta rhythm frequency (similar to 10 Hz). The later spikes in the bursts were part of the feedback inhibitory pathway because they were driven by late EPSCs, were blocked by an inhibitor of synaptic output from GCs, and shared the same frequency dependence as GC spiking. Therefore, the temporal content of signals arriving via the PP determines whether a FS interneuron participates in only feedforward (one spike) or both feedforward and feedback (burst) inhibition.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available