Neuroscience Bulletin

, 23:113 | Cite as

An intracellular study of pretectal influence on the optic tectum of the frog, Rana catesbeiana

  • Hong-Jian Kang (康宏建)
  • Xiao-Hong Li (李晓红)
Article

Abstract

Objective

A few investigations have been reported about pretectal suppressive influences on the optic tectum of frog, but characteristics of tectal activity to pretectal input are left unknown. We made intracellular recordings to demonstrate the unexpected complexity in synaptic mechanisms involved in the suppressive influences of pretecal stimulation on the tectal cells.

Methods

In the present study, we investigated the neuronal activity evoked by pretectal (Lpd/P) nuclei stimulation using intracellular recording technique.

Results

The pretectal stimulation mainly elicited two types of responses in the ipsilateral tectum: an excitatory postsynaptic potential (EPSP) followed by an inhibitory postsynaptic potential (IPSP) and a pure IPSP. The latter predominated in the tectal cells responding to pretectal stimulation. In a few cells, biphasic hyperpolarization appeared under stronger stimulus intensities. The spikes of tecto-pretectal projecting cells elicited by antidromical stimulation were recorded in the ipsilateral tectum, which revealed reciprocal connections between the tectum and particular pretectal nuclei. The synaptic natures underlying pretecto-tectal information transformation have also been demonstrated. EPSPs with short latencies were concluded to be monosynaptic. Most IPSPs were generated through polysynaptic paths, but monosynaptic IPSPs were also recorded in the tectum. Nearly 98% of impaled tectal cells (except for antidromically projecting cells) showed inhibitory responses to pretectal stimulation.

Conclusion

The results provide strong evidence that pretectal cells broadly inhibit tectal neurons as that has suggested by behavioral and extracellular recording studies.

Keywords

electric stimulation optic tectum Rana catesbeiana 

青蛙前视盖与视顶盖间神经传导的细胞内电生理研究

摘要

目的

已有许多研究报告了青蛙的前视盖对视顶盖起抑制作用, 但关于此神经活动的特性尚不清楚。 本研究探讨了这种复杂的神经活动的机理。

方法

用细胞内记录方法, 通过电刺激前视盖的神经细胞核来记录视顶盖细胞的神经活动。

结果

前视盖的电刺激在同侧视顶盖主要唤起了两种神经反应: 一种是兴奋性(excitatory postsynaptic potential, EPSP)和抑制性突触后电位(an inhibitory postsynaptic potential, IPSP)同时出现, 另一种是单纯的IPSP, 后者在本记录中占主导地位。 另外我们也记录到了某些投射到前视盖的视盖投射细胞的神经电位。 它揭示了视顶盖和前视盖之间存在着交叉性的相互作用。短潜时的EPSP可能是通过单突触进行传导的, 而大多数的IPSP是通过多突触方式进行神经信息传递的。几乎98%被记录的视盖细胞对前视盖的刺激显示出了 抑制性反应。

结论

前视盖的神经细胞对视顶盖的神经活动发挥了强烈的抑制性作用。

关键词

电刺激 视顶盖 牛蛙 

CLC number

Q424 

References

  1. [1]
    Ewert JP. Tectal mechanisms that underlie prey-catching and avoidance behaviors in toads. In: H. Vanegas (ed.), Comparative Neurology of the Optic Tectum. New York: Plenum Press, 1984, 247–416.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Ewert JP, TW Beneke, Schürg-Pfeiffer E, Schwippert WW, Weerasuriya A. Sensorimotor processes that underlie feeding behavior in tetrapods. In: Bels VL, Chardon M, Vandevalle P (eds.), Advances in comparative and environmental physiology. Vol. 18: Biomechanics of feeding in vertebrates. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994, 119–161.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Heiden an der U, Roth G. Retina and optic tectum in amphibians: a mathematical model and simulation studies. In: Ewert JP, Arbib MA (eds.), Visuomotor coordination: amphibians, comparisons, models, and robots. New York: Plenum Press, 1989, 243–267.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Hughes TE. A light-and electron-microscopic investigation of the optic tectum of the frog, Rana pipiens, I: The retinal axons. Vis Neurosci 1990, 4: 499–518.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Hughes TE. A light-and electron-microscopic investigation of the optic tectum of the frog, Rana pipiens, II: The neurons that give rise to the crossed tecto-bulbar pathway, Vis Neurosci 1990, 4: 519–531.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Satou M, Ewert JP. The antidromic activation of tectal neurons by electrical stimuli applied to the caudal medulla oblongata in the toad, Bufo bufo L. J Comp Physiol 1985, 157: 739–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Gruberg ER, Udin SB. Topographic projections between the nucleus isthmi and the tectum of the frog Rana pipiens. J Comp Neurol 1978, 179: 487–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Lázár G. Organization of the frog visual system. In: Lissak K (ed.), Recent Developments of Neurobiology in Hungary. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1979, 9–50.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Roth G, Grunwald W, Dicke U. Morphology, axonal projection pattern, and responses to optic nerve stimulation of thalamic neurons in the fire-bellied toad Bombina orientalis. J Comp Neurol 2003, 461: 91–110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Trachtenberg MC, Ingle DJ. Thalamo-tectal projections in the frog. Brain Res 1974, 79: 419–430.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Wilczyniski W, Northcutt RG. Afferent to the optic tectum of the leopard frog: an HRP study. J Comp Neurol 1977, 173: 219–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Ewert JP. Single unit response of the toad (Bufo americanus) caudal thalamus to visual objects. Z Vergl Physiol 1971, 74: 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Ewert JP. Neural mechanisms of prey-catching and avoidance behavior in the toad (Bufo bufo L.). Brain Behav Evol 1970, 3: 36–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Ingle D. Disinhibition of tectal neurons by pretectal lesions in the frog. Science 1973, 180: 422–424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Kondrashev SL, Dimentman AM. Role of dorsal thalamus in the organization of visually-mediated behavior in amphibians. In: OY Orlov (ed.), Mechanisms of vision of animals. Moscow: Nauka, 1978.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Finkenstädt T, Ewert JP. Visual pattern discrimination through interactions of neural networks: a combined electrical brain stimulation, brain lesion, and extracellular recording study in Salamandra salamandra. J Comp Physiol 1983, 153: 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Buxbaum-Conradi H, Ewert JP. Pretecto-tectal influences I. What the toad’s pretectum tells its tectum: an antidromic stimulation/recording study. J Comp Physiol 1995, 176: 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Ewert JP, Schurg-Pfeiffer E, Schwippert WW. Influence of pretectal lesions on tectal responses to visual stimulation in anurans: field potential, single neuron and behavior analyses. Acta Biol Hung 1996, 47: 89–111.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Schwippert WW, Beneke TW, Ewert JP. Pretecto-tectal influences II. How retinal and pretectal inputs to the toad’s superficial tectum interact: a study of electrically evoked field potentials. J Comp Physiol (A) 1995, 176: 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Matsumoto N, Bando T. Excitatory synaptic potentials and morphological classification of tectal neurons of the frog. Brain Res 1980, 192: 39–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Lázár G, Toth P, Csank G., Kicliter E. Morphology and location of tectal projection neurons in frogs: a study with HRP and cobalt filling. J Comp Neurol 1983, 215: 108–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Danger JM, Guy J, Benyamina M, Jegou S, Leboulenger F, Cote J, et al. Localization and identification of neuropeptide Y (NPY)-like immunoreactivity in the frog brain. Peptides 1985, 6: 1225–1236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Lázár G, Maderdrut JL, Trasti SL, Liposits Z, Toth P, Kozicz T, et al. Distribution of Proneuropeptide Y-derived peptides in the brain of Rana esculenta and Xenopus laevis. J Comp Neurol 1993, 327: 551–571.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Colmers WF, Klapstein GJ, Fournier A, St-Pierre S, Treherne KA. Presynaptic inhibition by neuropeptide-Y in rat hippocampal slice in vitro is mediated by a Y2 receptor. Br J Pharmacol 1991, 120: 41–44.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Székely G, Lázár G. Cellular and synaptic architecture of the optic tectum. In: Llinas R, Precht W (eds.), Frog neurobiology: A Handbook. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1976, 407–437.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Grüsser OJ, Grüsser-Cornehls U. Neurophysiology of the anuran visual system. In: Llinas R, Precht W (eds.), Frog neurobiology. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1976, 298–385.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Steinbach JH, Stevens CF. Neuromuscular transmission, In: Llinas R, Precht W (eds.), Frog neurobiology: A Handbook. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1976, 33–92.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Gruberg ER. Nucleus isthmi and optic tectum in frogs. In: Ewert JP, MA Arbib (eds.), Visuomotor coordination: amphibians, comparisons, models, and robots. New York: Plenum Press, 1989, 341–356.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Wang SR, Matsumoto N. Postsynaptic potentials and morphology of tectal cells responding to electrical stimulation of the bullfrog nucleus isthmi. Vis Neurosci 1990, 5: 479–488.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Lázár G. Structure and connections of the frog optic tectum. In: Vanegas H (ed.), Comparative neurology of the frog optic tectum. New York: Plenum Press, 1984, 185–210.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Antal M, Matsumoto N, Székely G. Tectal neurons of the frog: intracellular recording and labeling with cobalt electrodes. J Comp Neurol 1986, 246: 238–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Bieger D, Neuman RS. Selective accumulation of hydroxytryptamines by frog’s tectal neurons. Neuroscience 1984, 12: 1167–1177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Brown WT, Ingle D. Receptive field changes produced in frog thalamic units by lesions of the optic tectum. Brain Res 1973, 59: 405–409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hong-Jian Kang (康宏建)
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiao-Hong Li (李晓红)
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Graduate School of Life Science and Systems Engineering, Department of Brain Science and EngineeringKyushu Institute of TechnologyFukuokaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Neurosurgerythe First Hospital of ZiboZiboChina
  3. 3.Department of Ear-Nose-Throatthe First Hospital of ZiboZiboChina

Personalised recommendations