4.8 Article

Graded heterogeneity of metabotropic signaling underlies a continuum of cell-intrinsic temporal responses in unipolar brush cells

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-22893-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R35NS097284]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The authors demonstrate that graded molecular heterogeneity in cerebellar unipolar brush cells (UBCs) leads to a continuum of temporal responses, allowing for stable cell-autonomous basis for temporal integration and learning over multiple time scales.
The authors show that graded molecular heterogeneity in metabotropic pathways underlies a continuum of temporal responses in cerebellar unipolar brush cells (UBCs). This allows the UBC population to serve as a cell-autonomous basis for temporal integration and learning over multiple time scales. Many neuron types consist of populations with continuously varying molecular properties. Here, we show a continuum of postsynaptic molecular properties in three types of neurons and assess the functional correlates in cerebellar unipolar brush cells (UBCs). While UBCs are generally thought to form discrete functional subtypes, with mossy fiber (MF) activation increasing firing in ON-UBCs and suppressing firing in OFF-UBCs, recent work also points to a heterogeneity of response profiles. Indeed, we find a continuum of response profiles that reflect the graded and inversely correlated expression of excitatory mGluR1 and inhibitory mGluR2/3 pathways. MFs coactivate mGluR2/3 and mGluR1 in many UBCs, leading to sequential inhibition-excitation because mGluR2/3-currents are faster. Additionally, we show that DAG-kinase controls mGluR1 response duration, and that graded DAG kinase levels correlate with systematic variation of response duration over two orders of magnitude. These results demonstrate that continuous variations in metabotropic signaling can generate a stable cell-autonomous basis for temporal integration and learning over multiple time scales.

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

4.8
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