Single action potentials (APs) backpropagate into the higher-order dendrites of striatal spiny projection neurons during cortically driven "up" states. The timing of these backpropagating APs relative to the arriving corticostriatal excitatory inputs determines changes in dendritic calcium concentration. The question arises to whether this spike-timing relative to cortical excitatory inputs can also induce synaptic plasticity at corticostriatal synapses. Here we show that timing of single postsynaptic APs relative to the cortically evoked EPSP determines both the direction and the strength of synaptic plasticity in spiny projection neurons. Single APs occurring 30 ms before the cortically evoked EPSP induced long-term depression (LTD), whereas APs occurring 10 ms after the EPSP induced long-term potentiation (LTP). The amount of plasticity decreased as the time between the APs and EPSPs was increased, with the resulting spike-timing window being broader for LTD than for LTP. In addition, we show that dopamine receptor activation is required for this spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP). Blocking dopamine D 1 /D 5 receptors prevented both LTD and LTP induction. In contrast, blocking dopamine D 2 receptors delayed, but did not prevent, LTD and sped induction of LTP. We conclude (1) that, in combination with cortical inputs, single APs evoked in spiny projection neurons can induce both LTP and LTD of the corticostriatal pathway; (2) that the strength and direction of these synaptic changes depend deterministically on the AP timing relative to the arriving cortical inputs; (3) that, whereas dopamine D 2 receptor activation modulates the initial phase of striatal STDP, dopamine D 1 /D 5 receptor activation is critically required for striatal STDP. Thus, the timing of APs relative to cortical inputs alone is not enough to induce corticostriatal plasticity, implying that ongoing activity does not affect synaptic strength unless dopamine receptors are activated.

NMDA receptor (NMDAR) 2A (NR2A)-and NR2B-type NMDARs coexist in synapses of CA1 pyramidal cells. Recent studies using pharmacological blockade of NMDAR subtypes proposed that the NR2A type is responsible for inducing long-term potentiation (LTP), whereas the NR2B type induces long-term depression (LTD). This contrasts with the finding in genetically modified mice that NR2B-type NMDARs induce LTP when NR2A signaling is absent or impaired, although compensatory mechanisms might have contributed to this result. We therefore assessed the contribution of the two NMDAR subtypes to LTP in mouse hippocampal slices by different induction protocols and in the presence of NMDAR antagonists, including the NR2A-type blocker NVP-AAM077, for which an optimal concentration for subtype selectivity was determined on recombinant and native NMDARs. Partial blockade of NMDA EPSCs by 40%, either by preferentially antagonizing NR2A-or NR2B-type NMDARs or by the nonselective antagonist D-AP-5, did not impair LTP, demonstrating that hippocampal LTP induction can be generated by either NMDAR subtype.

Spike timing dependent plasticity (STDP) is a temporally specific extension of Hebbian associative plasticity that has tied together the timing of presynaptic inputs relative to the postsynaptic single spike. However, it is difficult to translate this mechanism to in vivo conditions where there is an abundance of presynaptic activity constantly impinging upon the dendritic tree as well as ongoing postsynaptic spiking activity that backpropagates along the dendrite. Theoretical studies have proposed that, in addition to this pre- and postsynaptic activity, a “third factor” would enable the association of specific inputs to specific outputs. Experimentally, the picture that is beginning to emerge, is that in addition to the precise timing of pre- and postsynaptic spikes, this third factor involves neuromodulators that have a distinctive influence on STDP rules. Specifically, neuromodulatory systems can influence STDP rules by acting via dopaminergic, noradrenergic, muscarinic, and nicotinic receptors. Neuromodulator actions can enable STDP induction or – by increasing or decreasing the threshold – can change the conditions for plasticity induction. Because some of the neuromodulators are also involved in reward, a link between STDP and reward-mediated learning is emerging. However, many outstanding questions concerning the relationship between neuromodulatory systems and STDP rules remain, that once solved, will help make the crucial link from timing-based synaptic plasticity rules to behaviorally based learning.

No abstract

No abstract