4.7 Article

Synapse Loss in Olfactory Local Interneurons Modifies Perception

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 31, 期 8, 页码 2734-2745

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5046-10.2011

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Research, Fundacion CIEN [BFU2009-12410/BMC]
  2. Comunidad de Madrid (OLFACTOSENSE) [SEM-0255-2006-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Synapse loss correlates with cognitive decline in aging and most neurological pathologies. Sensory perception changes often represent subtle dysfunctions that precede the onset of a neurodegenerative disease. However, a cause-effect relationship between synapse loss and sensory perception deficits is difficult to prove and quantify due to functional and structural adaptation of neural systems. Here we modified a PI3K/AKT/GSK3 signaling pathway to reduce the number of synapses-without affecting the number of cells-in five subsets of local interneurons of the Drosophila olfactory glomeruli and measured the behavioral effects on olfactory perception. The neuron subsets were chosen under the criteria of GABA or ChAT expression. The reduction of one subset of synapses, mostly inhibitory, converted the responses to all odorants and concentrations tested as repulsive, while the reduction of another subset, mostly excitatory, led to a shift toward attraction. However, the simultaneous reduction of both synapse subsets restored normal perception. One group of local interneurons proved unaffected by the induced synapse loss in the perception of some odorants, indicating a functional specialization of these cells. Using genetic tools for space and temporal control of synapse number decrease, we show that the perception effects are specific to the local interneurons, rather than the mushroom bodies, and are not based on major structural changes elicited during development. These findings demonstrate that synapse loss cause sensory perception changes and suggest that normal perception is based on a balance between excitation and inhibition.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据