4.4 Article

Shunting inhibition in accessory optic system neurons

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 93, 期 4, 页码 1959-1969

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00214.2004

关键词

-

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS033190-03, NS-33190] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interaction of excitatory and inhibitory inputs to the accessory optic system was studied with whole cell recordings in the turtle basal optic nucleus. Previous Studies have shown that visual patterns, drifting in the same preferred direction, evoke excitatory and inhibitory postsynaptic events simultaneously. Analysis of the reversal potentials for these events and their pharmacological profile Suggest that they are mediated by AMPA and GABA(A) receptors, respectively. Here, neurons were recorded to study nonlinear interaction between excitatory and inhibitory responses evoked by electrical microstimulation of the retina and pretectum, respectively. The responses to coincident activation of excitatory and inhibitory inputs exhibited membrane shunting in that the excitatory response amplitude, adjusted for changes in driving force. was attenuated during the onset of the inhibitory response. This nonlinear interaction was seen in many but not all stimulus pairings. In some cases, attenuation was followed by an augmentation of the excitatory response. For comparison, the size of the excitatory response was evaluated during a hyperpolarizing cut-rent pulse that directly modulated voltage-sensitive channels of a slow rectifying I-h current. Injection of hyperpolarizing current did not cause the attenuation of the excitatory synaptic responses. We conclude that there is a nonlinear interaction between these excitatory and inhibitory synaptic currents that is not due to hyperpolarization itself, but probably is a result of their own synaptic conductance changes, i.e., shunting. Since these events are evoked by identical Visual stimuli, this interaction may play a role in visual processing.

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

4.4
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