4.7 Article

Cholinergic interneurons control the excitatory input to the striatum

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 391-400

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3709-06.2007

关键词

acetylcholine; ACh; basal ganglia; glutamate; interneurons; presynaptic mechanisms; striatum

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [071943] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

How the extent and time course of presynaptic inhibition depend on the action potentials of the neuron controlling the terminals is unknown. We investigated this issue in the striatum using paired recordings from cholinergic interneurons and projection neurons. Glutamatergic EPSCs were evoked in projection neurons and cholinergic interneurons by stimulation of afferent fibers in the cortex and the striatum, respectively. A single spike in a cholinergic interneuron caused significant depression of the evoked glutamatergic EPSC in 34% of projection neurons located within 100 mu m and 41% of cholinergic interneurons located within 200 mu m. The time course of these effects was similar in the two cases, with EPSC inhibition peaking 20-30 ms after the spike and disappearing after 40-80 ms. Maximal depression of EPSC amplitude was up to 27% in projection neurons and to 19% in cholinergic interneurons. These effects were reversibly blocked by muscarinic receptor antagonists (atropine or methoctramine), which also significantly increased baseline EPSC (evoked without a preceding spike in the cholinergic interneuron), suggesting that some tonic cholinergic presynaptic inhibition was present. This was confirmed by the fact that lowering extracellular potassium, which silenced spontaneously active cholinergic interneurons, also increased baseline EPSC amplitude, and these effects were occluded by previous application of muscarinic receptor antagonists. Collectively, these results show that a single spike in a cholinergic interneuron exerts a fast and powerful inhibitory control over the glutamatergic input to striatal neurons.

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