4.7 Article

Visual deprivation modifies both presynaptic glutamate release and the composition of perisynaptic/extrasynaptic NMDA receptors in adult visual cortex

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 25, 期 50, 页码 11684-11692

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4362-05.2005

关键词

NMDA receptor; NR2A; NR2B; metaplasticity; visual cortex; sensory deprivation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Use-dependent modifications of synapses have been well described in the developing visual cortex, but the ability for experience to modify synapses in the adult visual cortex is poorly understood. We found that 10 d of late-onset visual deprivation modifies both presynaptic and postsynaptic elements at the layer 4 -> 2/3 connection in the visual cortex of adult mice, and these changes differ from those observed in juveniles. Although visual deprivation in juvenile mice modifies the subunit composition and increases the current duration of synaptic NMDA receptors (NMDARs), no such effect is observed at synapses between layer 4 and layer 2/3 pyramidal neurons in adult mice. Surprisingly, visual deprivation in adult mice enhances the temporal summation of NMDAR-mediated currents induced by bursts of high-frequency stimulation. The enhanced temporal summation of NMDAR-mediated currents in deprived cortex could not be explained by a reduction in the rate of synaptic depression, because our data indicate that late-onset visual deprivation actually increases the rate of synaptic depression. Biochemical and electrophysiological evidence instead suggest that the enhanced temporal summation in adult mice could be accounted for by a change in the molecular composition of NMDARs at perisynaptic/extrasynaptic sites. Our data demonstrate that the experience-dependent modifications observed in the adult visual cortex are different from those observed during development. These differences may help to explain the unique consequences of sensory deprivation on plasticity in the developing versus mature cortex.

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