4.1 Article

Synaptic organization of GABAergic amacrine cells in the salamander retina

期刊

VISUAL NEUROSCIENCE
卷 21, 期 6, 页码 817-825

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0952523804216029

关键词

synaptic organization; GABAergic amacrine cell; salamander retina

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [R01 EY10322] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The synaptic organization of GABA-immunoreactive (GABA-IR) amacrine cells in the inner plexiform layer (IPL) of salamander retina was studied with the use of postembedding immuno-electron microscopy. A total of 457 GABA-IR amacrine synapses. with identified postsynaptic elements. were analyzed on photornontages of electron micrographs covering 3.618 mum(2) of the IPL. GABA-IR amacrine synapses were distributed throughout the IPL. with a small peak at the proximal Margin of sublamina a. The majority of the Output targets (81%) were GABA(-) neurons. Most of the contacts were simple synapses with one postsynaptic element identified as a process of an amacrine cell (55%). bipolar cell (19%) or ganglion cell (26%), and serial synapses were very rare, Of the 89 Postsynaptic bipolar terminals, 63% participated in a reciprocal feedback synapse with the same presynaptic GABA-IR amacrine profile. There appeared to be no preference between GABA-IR amacrine contacts with rod- or cone-dorninated bipolar cells (9.1% vs. 8.9%) or in the total number of amacrine synapses in sublaminas a and b (52% vs. 47%). The preponderance of amacrine cell input to bipolar cells in the OFF layer was derived front GABA-IR cells. These findings provide ultrastructural support to the existing physiological studies regarding the functional roles of the GABAergic amacrine cells in this species. Our results have added to the data base demonstrating that, in contrast to mammals, GABA-IR amacrine cells in amphibians and other nonmammals contact other amacrine cells More frequently, suggesting greater involvement of GABAeric amacrine cells in modulating lateral inhibitory pathways.

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

4.1
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