4.7 Article

Synaptic basis for whisker deprivation- induced synaptic depression in rat somatosensory cortex

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 26, 期 16, 页码 4155-4165

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0175-06.2006

关键词

experience-dependent plasticity; barrel; map plasticity; LTD; release probability; short-term plasticity

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS046652-06, R01 NS046652] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Whisker deprivation weakens excitatory layer 4 (L4) inputs to L2/3 pyramidal cells in rat primary somatosensory (S1) cortex, which is likely to contribute to whisker map plasticity. This weakening has been proposed to represent long- term depression (LTD) induced by sensory deprivation in vivo. Here, we studied the synaptic expression mechanisms for deprivation- induced weakening of L4-L2/3 inputs and assessed its similarity to LTD, which is known to be expressed presynaptically at L4-L2/3 synapses. Whisker deprivation increased the paired pulse ratio at L4-L2/3 synapses and slowed the use- dependent block of NMDA receptor currents by MK- 801[(5S, 10R)-(+)-5methyl-10,11- dihydro-5H- dibenzo[a, d] cyclohepten-5,10- imine maleate], indicating that deprivation reduced transmitter release probability at these synapses. In contrast, deprivation did not alter either miniature EPSC amplitude in L2/3 neurons or the amplitude of quantal L4-L2/3 synaptic responses measured in strontium, indicating that postsynaptic responsiveness was unchanged. In young postnatal day 12 (P12) rats, at least 4 d of deprivation were required to significantly weaken L4-L2/3 synapses. Similar weakening occurred when deprivation began at older ages ( P20), when synapses are mostly mature, indicating that weakening is unlikely to represent a failure of synaptic maturation but instead represents a reduction in the strength of existing synapses. Thus, whisker deprivation weakens L4-L2/3 synapses by decreasing presynaptic function, similar to known LTD mechanisms at this synapse.

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