2016
DOI: 10.7554/elife.20502
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An NMDA receptor-dependent mechanism for subcellular segregation of sensory inputs in the tadpole optic tectum

Abstract: In the vertebrate CNS, afferent sensory inputs are targeted to specific depths or layers of their target neuropil. This patterning exists ab initio, from the very beginning, and therefore has been considered an activity-independent process. However, here we report that, during circuit development, the subcellular segregation of the visual and mechanosensory inputs to specific regions of tectal neuron dendrites in the tadpole optic tectum requires NMDA receptor activity. Blocking NMDARs during the formation of … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, acoustic stimulation tended to tune the network in the same direction as visual stimulation when delivered alone ( Figure 2D), but it negated the effects of visual stimulation when the two were combined. This effect is likely to be either a consequence of strong inhibitory recruitment during multisensory integration in the tectum Hamodi et al, 2016), or a sign of highly non-linear interactions between acoustic and visual inputs within the dendritic trees of individual tectal . Same data as in (C), shown as averages for each group, with 95% confidence intervals.…”
Section: Changes In Average Neuronal Tuning and Tuning Variabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, acoustic stimulation tended to tune the network in the same direction as visual stimulation when delivered alone ( Figure 2D), but it negated the effects of visual stimulation when the two were combined. This effect is likely to be either a consequence of strong inhibitory recruitment during multisensory integration in the tectum Hamodi et al, 2016), or a sign of highly non-linear interactions between acoustic and visual inputs within the dendritic trees of individual tectal . Same data as in (C), shown as averages for each group, with 95% confidence intervals.…”
Section: Changes In Average Neuronal Tuning and Tuning Variabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to visual input, tectal neurons receive input from several different non-visual sensory modalities including the auditory and lateral line systems (Hiramoto and Cline, 2009; Deeg et al, 2009; Hamodi et al, 2016), and local excitatory and inhibitory input from other tectal neurons. To determine if all excitatory synapses associated with PS-MO neurons were reduced, mEPSCs were recorded, and these data indicate a less pronounced decrease in current amplitude compared to that of the asEPSCs.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, given that weaker synapses are known to be less stable and have a higher probability of being lost than stronger ones (Ruthazer and Cline, 2006), the observed decrease in synapse number would be expected. In addition to visual input, tectal neurons receive input from several different non-visual sensory modalities including the auditory and lateral line systems (Deeg et al, 2009;Hiramoto and Cline, 2009;Hamodi et al, 2016), and local excitatory and inhibitory input from other tectal neurons. To determine if all excitatory synapses associated with PS-MO neurons were reduced, mEPSCs were recorded, and these data indicate a less pronounced decrease in current amplitude compared to that of the asEPSCs.…”
Section: Weaker and Fewer Retinotectal Synapses Recorded From Ps-mo Tmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Synaptic competition attempted to keep close to a constant both the sum of synaptic inputs to each neuron, and the sum of outputs from each neuron. In practice, it means that every time a synapse connecting neurons i and j increased in strength, all output synapses of neuron i and all input synapses of neuron j were scaled down a bit (Cohen-Cory, 2002;Munz et al, 2014;Hamodi et al, 2016).…”
Section: Developmental Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%