4.7 Article

Cytoarchitectonic and Dynamic Origins of Giant Positive Local Field Potentials in the Dentate Gyrus

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 33, 期 39, 页码 15518-15532

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0338-13.2013

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [BFU2010-19192/BFI, FIS2010-20054]
  2. UCM-Santander [910305]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To determine why some pathways but not others produce sizable local field potentials (LFPs) and how far from the source can these be recorded, complementary experimental analyses and realistic modeling of specific brain structures are required. In the present study, we combined multiple in vivo linear recordings in rats and a tridimensional finite element model of the dentate gyrus, a curved structure displaying abnormally large positive LFPs. We demonstrate that the polarized dendritic arbour of granule cells (GCs), combined with the curved layered configuration of the population promote the spatial clustering of GC currents in the interposed hilus and project them through the open side at a distance from cell domains. LFPs grow up to 20 times larger than observed in synaptic sites. The dominant positive polarity of hilar LFPs was only produced by the synchronous activation of GCs in both blades by either somatic inhibition or dendritic excitation. Moreover, the corresponding anatomical pathways must project to both blades of the dentate gyrus as even a mild decrease in the spatial synchronization resulted in a dramatic reduction in LFP power in distant sites, yet not in the GC domains. It is concluded that the activation of layered structures may establish sharply delimited spatial domains where synaptic currents from one or another input appear to be segregated according to the topology of afferent pathways and the cytoarchitectonic features of the target population. These also determine preferred directions for volume conduction in the brain, of relevance for interpretation of surface EEG recordings.

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