No abstract

The aim of this study was to analyse neurotransmitter content, projection areas and target cells of commissural interneurons with input from group I and/or II muscle afferents in lumbar segments in the cat. Axonal projections of 15 intracellularly labelled commissural interneurons were reconstructed. Ten interneurons (nine located in laminae VI-VII, one in lamina VIII) were glutamatergic; only one interneuron (located in lamina VIII) was glycinergic. Contralateral terminal projections were found both in motor nuclei and within laminae VI-VIII. In order to identify target cells of commissural interneurons, effects of stimulation of contralateral group I and II muscle afferents were investigated on interneurons within these laminae. Three tests were used: intracellular records from individual interneurons, modulation of probability of activation of extracellularly recorded interneurons and modulation of their actions on motoneurons using disynaptic PSPs evoked in motoneurons as a measure. All these tests revealed much more frequent and/or stronger excitatory actions of contralateral afferents. The results indicate that commissural interneurons with input from contralateral group I and II afferents target premotor interneurons in disynaptic pathways from ipsilateral group I and II afferents and that excitatory disynaptic actions of contralateral afferents on these interneurons are mediated primarily by intermediate zone commissural interneurons. A second group of commissural interneurons activated by reticulospinal neurons, previously described, frequently had similar, but occasionally opposing, actions to the cells described here, thus indicating that these two subpopulations may act on the same premotor interneurons and either mutually enhance or counteract each other's actions.

Previous experiments implicate cholinergic brainstem and spinal systems in the control of locomotion. Our results demonstrate that the endogenous cholinergic propriospinal system, acting via M2 and M3 muscarinic receptors, is capable of consistently producing well-coordinated locomotor activity in the in vitro neonatal preparation, placing it in a position to contribute to normal locomotion and to provide a basis for recovery of locomotor capability in the absence of descending pathways. Tests of these suggestions, however, reveal that the spinal cholinergic system plays little if any role in the induction of locomotion, because MLR-evoked locomotion in decerebrate cats is not prevented by cholinergic antagonists. Furthermore, it is not required for the development of stepping movements after spinal cord injury, because cholinergic agonists do not facilitate the appearance of locomotion after spinal cord injury, unlike the dramatic locomotion-promoting effects of clonidine, a noradrenergic α-2 agonist. Furthermore, cholinergic antagonists actually improve locomotor activity after spinal cord injury, suggesting that plastic changes in the spinal cholinergic system interfere with locomotion rather than facilitating it. Changes that have been observed in the cholinergic innervation of motoneurons after spinal cord injury do not decrease motoneuron excitability, as expected. Instead, the development of a “hyper-cholinergic” state after spinal cord injury appears to enhance motoneuron output and suppress locomotion. A cholinergic suppression of afferent input from the limb after spinal cord injury is also evident from our data, and this may contribute to the ability of cholinergic antagonists to improve locomotion. Not only is a role for the spinal cholinergic system in suppressing locomotion after SCI suggested by our results, but an obligatory contribution of a brainstem cholinergic relay to reticulospinal locomotor command systems is not confirmed by our experiments.